M/s. ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Baroda V. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

ITA 344/AHD/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6835 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Non compliance; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 201; 142(2A); 44AB; 13; 92CA; 263; 144

Judgement Text

, D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD ( CONVENED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 344/AHD/2020 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) ITT CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED PLOT NO.731, MANJUSAR GIDC, SAVLI ROAD, VADODARA - 391775 / VS. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 ROOM NO.214, SECOND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, INCOME TAX OFFOCE, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA, GUJARAT 390007 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCI7013D ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHINAL SHAH, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MOHD. USMAN, CIT.DR / DATE OF HEARING 27/01/2021 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 /01/2021 $%/ O R D E R PER : RAJPAL YADAV, V.P. : THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF T HE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX -1, VADODARA, DATED 22.04.2020 PASSED FOR A.Y. 2014-15 UNDER S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 344/AHD/20 [ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 2 - 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ONE GROUND OF APPE AL BUT IT CONTAINS VARIOUS SUB-GROUNDS. IN BRIEF, ITS GRIEVAN CE REVOLVES AROUND A SINGLE ISSUE, NAMELY, LD.CIT HAS ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE UNDER S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THEREBY SETTI NG ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR FRAMING IT AFRESH. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE CO MPANY AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND TRAD ING OF WATER PUMP, INDUSTRIAL AND CHEMICAL PUMPS AND ITS ACCESSO RIES. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.11.2014 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.16,95,929/-. THE BOOK PROFIT WAS DECLARED AT RS .3,84,00,911/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY A SSESSMENT AND THE NOTICE UNDER S.143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 31.0 8.2015, WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH LD.AO HA S MADE TWO ADDITIONS AMOUNTING TO RS.15.15 CRORE BUT ULTIMATEL Y INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT NIL AFTER SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS. 4. DISSATISFYING WITH THE ADDITIONS, ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. DURING THE P ENDENCY OF APPEAL, LEARNED ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER TOOK COGNIZANCE UNDER S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E INVITING THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT OR DER SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE REST OF THE REVENUE. COPY OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN PLACED ON PA GE NO.1 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH READS AS UNDER: NOTICE U/S 263(1) OF THE IT ACT SUB: PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE I-T ACT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ITT CORPORATION PVT. LTD., PAN: AABCI7013D FOR A.Y.2014- 15 -REG. SIR, ITA NO. 344/AHD/20 [ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 3 - WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S . 144 R.W.S. 92CA OF THE I,T. ACT DATED 30,12.2017 FOR A.Y. 2014 -15, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE SAME IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING:- ON VERIFICATION OF RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT FOR THE A. Y. 2014-15, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED BY M/S. MUK UND & ROHIT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND AUDIT REPORT IN FOR M 3CB/3CD WAS FINALIZED ON 30/11/2014 WHEREAS FOR A.Y. 2013-1 4, CASE WAS REFERRED U/S. 142(2A) OF THE ACT AND FOR THIS PURPO SE, M/S. PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN & CO. WERE APPOINTED AS AUDITO R AND SPECIAL AUDIT U/S. 142(2A) OF THE ACT AND AUDIT REP ORT U/S.!43(2A) WAS FINALIZED ON 15/09/2016. HOWEVER, BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS FOR A.Y. 2014-15 WERE ALREADY FINALIZED AT CLOSING BALA NCE AS PER AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CB/3CD, DATED 12/12/2013 FOR A.Y. 2013- 14, THEREFORE, OPENING VALUES OF THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION, I.E.. A.Y. 2014-15 WAS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE VALUES CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR UNDER SPECIAL AUDIT U/S. 142(2A) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2013-14. FOR INSTANCE, IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET U/S.142(2A) OF THE ACT THE SHARE CAPITAL AS ON 31/0 3/2013 WAS CERTIFIED AT RS. 1,81,58,80,000/- AND THE SAME HAD BEEN DECLARED AT RS. 1,59,66,40,000/- IN THE BALANCE SHEET AUDITE D U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT. LIKEWISE, EACH INGREDIENT OF BALANCE SHEET DIFFERS. EVEN TOTAL OF BALANCE SHEET (AS ON 31/03/2013) IS RS.1,5 9,66,40,000/- AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET, AUDITED U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT WHEREAS THE TOTAL OF BALANCE SHEET IS RS, 1,81,58,80, OOO/- IN THE BALANCE SHEET AUDITED U/S. 142(2A) OF THE ACT. IT C AN, THEREFORE, BE SEEN THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DO NO T REFLECT TRUE AND FAIR STATE OF AFFAIRS OF ITS BUSINESS AND THERE FORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S. 92CA OF THE I-T ACT CONSIDERING THOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, YOU ARE BEING GRANTED AN OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD AND TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE AFORESAID ASS ESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A.Y. 2014-15 SHOULD NOT B E SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THIS REGARD. FOR THIS PURPOSE, YOU MAY APPEA R BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED, IN PERSON OR THROUGH YOUR AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE OR FILE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OR. 27.02.2020 AT 11:3O A.M. /P.M. IN CASE OF NON COMPLIANCE, THE MATTER WILL BE DECIDED ON MERIT S AS PER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. 4.1 IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED SUBMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER AND THEREAFTER HE ARRIVED AT CONCLUSIO N THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THEREFORE IT REQUIRES TO BE SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY, LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 344/AHD/20 [ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 4 - ORDER DIRECTING THE AO TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT O RDER AFTER CONDUCTING PROPER INQUIRIES/VERIFICATIONS OF THE IS SUES TAKEN UP IN SECTION 263 PROCEEDINGS. 4.2 SHRI DHINAL SHAH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE WHILE IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE CIT TOOK US THROUGH THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, HE TOOK US THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT. APPRAISING US THE SCOPE O F THE ACTION UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT, HE PUT RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS, THEIR COPIES HAVE BEEN PLACED IN PAPER BOOK: 1. MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC) 2. CIT VS. RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED (SC) 3. CIT V. RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED (ITA NO. 1 816 OF 201 3) (BOMBAY HC) 4. CIT V. ARVIND JEWELLERS (259 ITR 502) (GUJARAT H C) 5. CIT V. R.K. CONSTRUCTION (313 ITR 65) (GUJ HC) 6. CIT V. FINE JEWELLERY (INDIA) LTD. (55 TAXMANN.C OM 514) (MUM HC) 7. CIT V. JAIN CONSTRUCTION CO. (34 TAXMANN.COM 84) (RAJ HC) 8. MERRUT ROLLER FLOUR PVT. LTD. V. CIT (1 10 TAXMA NN.COM 170) (ALLAHABAD HC) 9. MUNJAL CASTING LIMITED (303 ITR 23) (P&H HC) 10. CIT V. RATLAM COAL ASH CO. (171 ITR 141) (MP HC ) 11. RAVI K MODY V. ITO (151 TAXMANN 11) (AHMEDABAD ITAT) 12. CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED VS. CIT (51 TAXMANN.C OM 255) (AHMEDABAD ITAT) 13. ZAVERI & CO. PVT. LTD. V. CIT (48 TAXMANN.COM 1 53) (AHMEDABAD ITAT) 14. M/S. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LT D. VS. PCIT (ITA NO. 2211/MUM/2019FORA.Y.2014-15) (MUMBAI ITAT) 15. ANTALA SANJAYKUMAR RAVJIBHAI V. CIT (135 ITD 50 6) (RAJKOT ITAT) 16. INDO ENTERPRISE LIMITED VS. THE PCIT (ITA NO. 7 51 /PUN/201 9) (PUNE ITAT) 4.3 ON THE STRENGTH OF THESE JUDGMENTS, HE CONTENDE D THAT PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT CAN BE INITIATED BY THE LEARNED CIT IF THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDING TO HIM, IF AO H AD MADE ENQUIRY AND TOOK UP A PARTICULAR VIEW BASED ON THE DOCUMENT S SUBMITTED AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM, THEN EVEN IF LEARNED COMMISSIONER ITA NO. 344/AHD/20 [ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 5 - HOLDS DIFFERENT VIEW, ACTION UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE TAKEN. IN OTHER WORDS, IF LEARNED AO HAS TAKEN A VIEW PERM ISSIBLE IN LAW WHICH DOES NOT MATCH WITH THE VIEW OF THE CIT, THEN ALSO PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE TAKEN. AFTER APPRAISING US WITH THE SCOPE OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO.15 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 20 TH DECEMBER, 2017 READS AS UNDER: SUB: ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT- A.Y. 2014-15 AUDIT U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT - SHOW CAUSE- REGARDING. KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE. 2. AT THE PREABLE, IT IS TO MENTION HERE THAT YOUR CASE WAS REFERRED U/S 142(2A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14. FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUDIT U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT, M/ S PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN & CO. WERE APPOINTED AS AUDITOR. YOU H AVE SUBMITTED THE COPY OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND PRO FIT & LOSS ACCOUNT TO THIS OFFICE W.R.T A.Y. 2013-14. 3. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15, YOU HAVE SUBMITTED COPY OF BALANCE SHEET A ND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, DULY AUDITED BY M/S. MUKUND & ROHIT C HARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. ON VERIFICATION, THE BALANCE SHEET REF LECTS DIFFERENT OPENING VALUES VIS-A-VIS BALANCE SHEET AUDITED U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT. FOR INSTANCE IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT, THE SHARE CAPITAL AS ON 31.03.2013 HAS BEEN CE RTIFIED AT RS.181,58,80,000/- AND, THE SAME HAS BEEN DECLARED AT RS.159,66,40,000/- IN THE BALANCE SHEET AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT. LIKEWISE, EACH INGREDIENT OF BALANCE SHEET DIF FERS. EVEN TOTAL OF BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.03.2013 IS RS.159,66,40,0 00/- IN THE BALANCE SHEET PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSES, I.E. AUDITE D U/S 44AB OF THE ACT, WHEREAS, THE TOTAL OF BALANCE SHEET IS RS. 181,58,80,000/- IN THE BALANCE SHEET AUDITED U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT . 4. ON THE NARRATED BACKDROP, IT CAN BE SAID THAT TH E OPENING VALUES OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E. A,Y. 2 014-15 IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THEN THE VALUES CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR UNDER SPECIAL AUDIT U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT, ACCORDINGLY, THIS OFFICE IS OF CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DO NOT REFLECT TRUE AND FAIR PICTURE OF STATE OF AFFAIRS OF BUSINESS, A ND, IN THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, YOUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS REQUIRED T O BE AUDITED BY AN ACCOUNTANT DEFINED U/S 288(2) OF THE ACT, DULY N OMINATED BY THE ITA NO. 344/AHD/20 [ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 6 - PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDAB AD. YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AS PROVI DED IN SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT AND YOU ARE ALSO REQUESTED TO SH OW CAUSE AS TO WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BE .DIRECTED TO GET YOUR ACCOUNT S AUDITED U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE LIMITATION FOR FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT, I.E. 31.12.2017, YOUR COMPLIANCE IS SOL ICITED ON 22.12.2017 AT 11:00 AM, FAILING WHICH IT WOULD BE C ONSTRUED THAT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY IN THE MATTER AND APPROPRIA TE INFERENCE WOULD BE DRAWN ACCORDINGLY. FURTHER, PLEASE NOTE TH AT THIS OFFICE WOULD NOT BE TO GRANT ANY ADJOURNMENT KEEPING IN VI EW THE DATE OF LIMITATION. 4.4 LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT ISSUES TAKEN UP IN SECTION 263 PROCEEDINGS, SHOW CAUSE NOTICES A RE IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF ONE ENQUIRED BY THE AO BY WAY OF THE ABOVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT SPECIAL AUDIT WAS UNDERTAKEN IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AYS. 2012-13 & 2013-14 . THERE WERE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES IN THE B ALANCE SHEET PREPARED BY THE SPECIAL AUDITOR VIS--VIS BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESSEE. THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH D IFFERENCES IN BOTH THE YEARS. THE SPECIAL AUDIT CAN ONLY BE ORDE RED WHERE THE CONDITIONS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 142(2A) OF THE AC T ARE FULFILLED. IN OTHER WORDS, WHERE THERE IS COMPLEXITY IN THE AC COUNTS AND THE TREE INCOME CANNOT BE DEDUCED, ONLY THEN SPECIAL AU DIT CAN BE ORDERED. BUT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE WERE NO C OMPLEXITY IN THE ACCOUNTS POINTED OUT BY THE AO. THOUGH, LEARNED AO INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR SPECIAL AUDIT BUT AFTER THE REPLY O F THE ASSESSEE NO SUCH ORDER WAS PASSED. THE LEARNED AO FOUND DIFFER ENCE IN THE TWO BALANCE SHEETS I.E. 12 MONTH BALANCE SHEET AUDITED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT M/S. MUKUND & ROHIT AND 15 MONTH BALANCE SHEET AUDITED BY DELLOITTE HASKINS & SELLS. THE DIFFERENC E BETWEEN TWO BALANCE SHEETS HAS BEEN ADDED AT RS.6,06,25,125/- B Y THE AO WHICH IS A SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). ITA NO. 344/AHD/20 [ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 7 - 4.5 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT AS FAR AS OBSERVATIONS OF CIT THAT SPECIAL AUDIT WAS C ONCLUDED IN AY 2013-14 AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF AUDIT FROM THE PRES ENT AY I.E. 2014- 15 IS CONCERNED, WHATEVER MAY BE THE DIFFERENCES BE TWEEN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER AUDITORS REPORTS VIS--VIS THE BALANCE SHEET PREPARED BY THE SPECIAL AUDITOR A RE CONCERNED THOSE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN AYS. 2012-13 & 2 013-14 ITSELF THEIR IMPACT WILL NOT PERCOLATE TO THE AY 2014-15. IF ONE GOES BY THE APPROACH OF THE CIT THEN EVERY YEAR SPECIAL AUD IT OF THE ACCOUNTS WILL BE REQUIRED. ONCE THE EFFECT OF THE S PECIAL AUDIT HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH AUDIT WAS HELD , THEN IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR THE BALANCE SHEET IS NOT REQUIRED T O BE DISTURBED. HE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SO FAR AS THE CASE LAWS RELI ED UPON BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ARE CONCERNED, THEY ARE NOT AP PLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED GIST OF HIS ARGUMENTS AND ALSO ANNEXED ANNEXU RE-1 EXHIBITING THE DETAILS OF ADDITIONS MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AYS. 2012013 & 2013-14. FOR EXAMPLE, IN AY 2012-13 , AS PER PROVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, A SUM OF RS.5 ,74,62,209/- HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS ADVANCE RECOVERABLE IN CASH OR KIND O R FOR VALUE. THE SPECIAL AUDITOR IN ITS REPORT HAS QUANTIFIED TH IS AMOUNT AT RS.10.94 CRORE. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5.19 CRORE WA S ADDED. HE MADE REFERENCE TO OTHER ITEMS ALSO AND SUBMITTED TH AT ONCE IT IS ASSESSED ON THIS BASIS, THOUGH THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE SPECIAL AUDITOR WERE PROVISIONAL, THEN NO EFFECT WOULD COME IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2014-15 . THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, NO ACTION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. 5. THE LEARNED CIT.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UP ON THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER RECORDED IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER ITA NO. 344/AHD/20 [ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 8 - S.263 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESS EE HAS NEVER BEEN MAINTAINING ITS ACCOUNTS ACCORDING TO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. ITS ACCOUNTS WERE ALWAYS INCOMPLETE AND PROVISIONAL. E VEN IN AY 2012-13 & 2013-14, IT HAS FILED PROVISIONAL ACCOUNT S. THIS FACT IS DISCERNABLE FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN ANNEXURE 1 ALSO. THE ACCOUNTS WERE TO BE FINALIZED AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2014. THIS WAS THE DATE OF BALANCE SHEET B UT THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT VALUES ON THE DATE OF BALANCE SH EET I.E. 31 ST MARCH, 2014. WHEN LEARNED CIT ENQUIRED ABOUT IT, T HEN EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT BOTH THE AUDITORS MUKUND & ROHIT AND DELLOITTE HASKINS & SELLS HAD TAKEN TWO DIFFERENT P ERIODS I.E. MUKUND & ROHIT AUDITED 12 MONTHS ACCOUNTS, WHEREA S, DELLOITTE HASKINS & SELLS FOR 15 MONTHS. THE LEARNED CIT.DR POINTED OUT THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DIFFERENCE ON THE BALA NCE SHEET DATE I.E. 31 ST MARCH, 2014. THERE CAN BE CERTAIN DIFFERENCES IN QUANTITATIVE TERMS IN SOME OF THE ITEMS BUT AT THE FINAL DAY ACC OUNT SHOULD TALLY. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE ARE DIFFERENCES. THE AO HAS JUST TOOK COGNIZANCE OF SOME OF THE ITEMS BUT THEREAFTER LEFT THEM THERE WITHOUT CONDUCTING THE ENQUIRY. THIS ACTION OF NON -INVESTIGATING THOSE ISSUES IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN TEREST OF THE REVENUE. IT DULY FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXPLANAT ION (2) APPENDED TO SECTION 263 WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO STATUTE BOOK BY FINANCE ACT NO. 2015. 6. IN HIS NEXT FOLD OF SUBMISSION, HE SUBMITTED THA T THOUGH AO INTEND TO RECOMMEND FOR A SPECIAL AUDIT UNDER S.142 (2A) OF THE ACT IN THIS YEAR ALSO, BUT AFTER ISSUING A SHOW CAUSE N OTICE OF HIS INTENTION, HE ABRUPTLY LEFT THIS ISSUE WITHOUT RECO RDING ANY FINDINGS AS TO WHETHER HE HAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE AND DROPPING THE SPECIAL AUDIT ? THIS ABRUPT DIVORCE F ROM THE ISSUE WITHOUT RECORDING ANY REASON EITHER IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE ON THE ITA NO. 344/AHD/20 [ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 9 - BASIS OF ITS EXPLANATION OR AGAINST IT ON ITS ORIGI NAL VIEW POINT AMOUNTS TO AN ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH H AS RIGHTLY BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER BY SETTING AS IDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD.REPRESENTATIVE, WE HAV E GONE THRUGH THE RECORD. SECTION 263 HAS A DIRECT BEARING ON THE CONTROVERSY, THEREFORE, IT IS PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THIS SEC TION. IT READS AS UNDER:- 263(1) THE COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE T HE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THER EON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORD ER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLIN G THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. [EXPLANATION.- FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HER EBY DECLARED THAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION ,- (A) AN ORDER PASSED ON OR BEFORE OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY O F JUNE, 1988 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL INCLUDE- (I) AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 144A; (II) AN ORDER MADE BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OR IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER CONFERRED ON, OR ASSIGNED TO, HIM UNDER THE ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD OR BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR COMMISSIONER AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD IN THIS BEHALF UNDER SECTION 120; (B) RECORD SHALL INCLUDE AND SHALL BE DEEMED ALWAYS TO HAVE INCLUDED ALL RECORDS RELATING TO ANY PROCEEDIN G ITA NO. 344/AHD/20 [ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 10 - UNDER THIS ACT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE COMMISSIONER; (C) WHERE ANY ORDER REFERRED TO IN THIS SUB-SECTION AND PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN THE SUBJEC T MATTER OF ANY APPEAL FILED ON OR BEFORE OR AFTER TH E 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1988, THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL EXTEND AND SHALL BE DEEMED ALWAYS TO HAVE EXTENDED TO SUCH MATTERS AS HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN SUCH APPEAL. (2) NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AF TER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCI AL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PA SSED. (3) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTI ON (2), AN ORDER IN REVISION UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE PASSED AT ANY TIME IN THE CASE OF AN ORDER WHICH HA S BEEN PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE OF, OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO , ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NATIONAL TAX TRIBUNAL, THE HIGH COURT OR THE SUPREME COURT. EXPLANATION.- IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (2), THE TIME TAKEN IN GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO BE REHEARD UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 129 AND ANY PERIOD DURING WHICH ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS SECTION IS STAYED BY AN ORDER OR INJUNCTION OF ANY COURT SHALL BE EXCLUDED. 8. ON A BARE PERUSAL OF THE SUB SECTION-1 WOULD REV EAL THAT POWERS OF REVISION GRANTED BY SECTION 263 TO THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER HAVE FOUR COMPARTMENTS. IN THE FIRST P LACE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE R ECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT. FOR CALLING OF THE RECO RD AND EXAMINATION, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS NOT REQUI RED TO SHOW ANY REASON. IT IS A PART OF HIS ADMINISTRATIVE CONT ROL TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND EXAMINE THEM. THE SECOND FEATURE WOULD COME WHEN HE ITA NO. 344/AHD/20 [ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 11 - WILL JUDGE AN ORDER PASSED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER ON CULMINATION OF ANY PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE PENDENCY OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD AND OF THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE FORMED AN OPINION THAT SUCH AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE RE VENUE. BY THIS STAGE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS NOT REQUIRED THE ASSIS TANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE THIRD STAGE WOULD COME. TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER WOULD ISSUE A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE POINTI NG OUT THE REASONS FOR THE FORMATION OF HIS BELIEF THAT ACTION U/S 263 IS REQUIRED ON A PARTICULAR ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT THIS STAGE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE GIVEN. THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER HAS TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY AS HE MAY DE EM FIT. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, HE WILL PASS THE ORDER. THIS IS THE 4TH COMPARTMENT OF THIS SECTION. THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER MAY ANNUL THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE MAY ENHANCE THE ASSESSED INCOME BY MODIFYING THE ORDER. HE MAY SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS A FRESH ORDER. AT THIS STAGE, BEFORE CONSIDERING THE MULTI-FOLD CONTENTIONS OF TH E LD. REPRESENTATIVES, WE DEEM IT PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL TESTS PROPOUNDED IN VARIOUS JUDGMENTS R ELEVANT FOR JUDGING THE ACTION OF THE CIT TAKEN U/S 263. THE IT AT IN THE CASE OF MRS. KHATIZA S. OOMERBHOY VS. ITO, MUMBAI, 101 TTJ 1095, ANALYZED IN DETAIL VARIOUS AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEM ENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F MALABAR INDUSTRIES 243 ITR 83 AND HAS PROPOUNDED THE FOLLOW ING BROADER PRINCIPLE TO JUDGE THE ACTION OF CIT TAKEN UNDER SE CTION 263. (I) THE CIT MUST RECORD SATISFACTION THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. BOTH THE CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED. (II) SEC. 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ITA NO. 344/AHD/20 [ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 12 - AO AND IT WAS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. (III) AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SUFFICE THE REQUIREMENT OF ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. (IV) IF THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, SUCH ORDER WILL FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF ERRONEOUS ORDER. (V) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND IF THE AO HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE AO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE. IF CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW (VI) IF WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES ENQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINE THE INCOME, THE CIT, WHILE EXERCISING HIS POWER UNDER S 263 IS NOT PERMITTED TO SUBSTITUTE HIS ESTIMATE OF INCOME IN PLACE OF THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE AO. (VII) THE AO EXERCISES QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER VESTED IN HIS AND IF HE EXERCISES SUCH POWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION, SUCH CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CIT DOES NOT FEE STRATIFIED WITH THE CONCLUSION. (VIII) THE CIT, BEFORE EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 MUST HAVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION. (IX) IF THE AO HAS MADE ENQUIRIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANATION BY A LETTER IN WRITING AND THE AO ALLOWS THE CLAIM ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DECISION OF THE AO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER HE DOES NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD. ITA NO. 344/AHD/20 [ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 13 - 9. APART FROM THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES, WE DEEM IT APPROPR IATE TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE ENTERPRISES LTD VS. ADDL. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (99 ITR 375). IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE EN TERPRISE (SUPRA), THE HONBLE COURT HAS EXPOUNDED THE APPROA CH OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE COURT ON PAGES 386 OF JOURNAL READ A S UNDER:- IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER. THE COMMISSIONER CAN REGARD TH E ORDER AS ERRONEOUS ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHE R INQUIRIES BEFORE ACCEPTING THE STATEMENTS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN. THE REASON IS OBVIOUS. THE POSITION AND FUNCTION O F THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS VERY DIFFIDENT FROM THAT OF A CIVIL COURT. THE STATEMENT MADE IN A PLEADING PROVED BY THE MINI MUM AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE MAY BE ADOPTED BY A CIVIL COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REBUTTAL. THE CIVIL COURT IS NEUTRA L. IT SIMPLY GIVES DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADING AND EVI DENCE WHICH COMES BEFORE IT. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS NOT ONL Y ON ADJUDICATOR BUT ALSO AN INVESTIGATOR. HE CANNOT REM AIN PASSIVE IN THE FACE OF THE RETURN WHICH IS APPARENT LY IN ORDER BUT CALLED FOR FURTHER INQUIRY. IT IS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN THE CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE SUCH AS TO PROVOKE AN INQUIRY IT I S BECAUSE IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO FURTHER I NVESTIGATE THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES W OULD MADE SUCH AN INQUIRY PRUDENT THAT THE WORD ERRONEOUS I N SECTION 263 INCLUDES THE FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH AN ENQUIRY. THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE SUCH AN INQUIRY HAS NOT B EEN MADE AND NOT BECAUSE THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH T HE ORDER IF ALL THE FACTS STATED THEREIN ARE ASSUMED TO BE C ORRECT. ITA NO. 344/AHD/20 [ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 14 - 10. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE REC ORD CAREFULLY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSITION THAT IF, ON ANY ISSUE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE DETAILS AND FORMED AN O PINION, WHICH IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS IN LAW, THEN THAT VIEW DE SERVES NOT TO BE REPLACED BY THE HIGHER AUTHORITY I.E. LEARNED COMMI SSIONER WHILE EXERCISING THE POWERS UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. A M OOT QUESTION BEFORE US IS, WHETHER THE AO HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE V IEWS POSSIBLE IN LAW ? NO DOUBT HE ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 20.12.2017 REGARDING THE DETAILS CONSIDERED BY THE LD.CIT IN T HE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. BUT IT IS TO BE APPR ECIATED THAT THIS NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE AO ON 20.12.2017, AND HE H AS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 30.12.2017. ACCORDING TO THE A SSESSEE, IT HAS FILED A REPLY WHOSE COPY IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.19 OF THE PAPER BOOK, BUT IT DOES CONTAIN THE DATE ON WHICH THIS RE PLY WAS SUBMITTED. THE AO DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND AS WELL A S INVESTIGATED THE ISSUE IN THE NOTICE ISSUED ON 20.12.2017. FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONE CAN ASSUME THAT THE LD.AO HAD TAKEN CO GNIZANCE OF THESE DETAILS, AND WAS DULY AWARE ABOUT THE DISCREP ANCY IN THE ACCOUNTS, BUT HE ADOPTED ALL THESE THINGS IN A PERI PHERAL MANNER. HE HAS NO TIME BECAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 20 TH DECEMBER, 2017 AND ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2017. HE NOWHERE ASSESSED THE IMPACT OF SPECIAL AUDITOR IN EARLIER YEARS COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NEVER BEING COMPL ETED; THEY ARE PROVISIONAL EVEN IN EARLIER YEARS. DURING THE COUR SE OF HEARING, WE HAVE PUT TO THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT AN Y OF THE AUTHORITY HAD AN OCCASION TO CONCLUSIVELY DEAL WITH THE INCOM PLETENESS OF ITS ACCOUNTS EVEN IN 2012-13 AND 2013-14, BECAUSE IN TH OSE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SETTLED THE ISSUE UNDER KAR VI VAD SAMADHAN SCHEME. IN THE PRESENT YEAR, IMPACT PERCOLATING TO THIS YEAR HAS NOT BEEN ASSESSED BY THE AO. THIS ACT OF NON-ADJUDICAT ION OF THE ISSUE AT THE END OF THE AO BRAND HIS ORDER AS ERRONEOUS W HICH HAS CAUSED ITA NO. 344/AHD/20 [ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 15 - PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE AO HAS EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE TO GET THE ACCOUNTS AUDITE D BY THE SPECIAL AUDITOR IN THIS YEAR ALSO. BUT, ALL OF A SUDDEN HE DROPPED HIS IDEA WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. THIS ASPECT HAS ALS O BEEN LOOKED INTO BY THE LD.COMMISSIONER WHILE ASSESSING THE FAC T, WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS OR NOT. IT IS PERTI NENT TO OBSERVE THAT WHEN A CONCLUSION HAD BEEN REACHED ON AN APPRECIATI ON OF NUMBER OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY EVIDENCE, WHETHER THAT WAS SOUND OR NOT MUST BE DETERMINED NOT BY CONSIDERING THE WEIGHT TO BE A TTACHED TO EACH SINGLE FACT IN ISOLATION BUT BY ASSESSING THE CUMUL ATIVE EFFECT OF ALL THE FACTS IN THEIR SETTING AS A WHOLE. WE HAVE TO APPRECIATE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER BY LOOKING IN TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND NOT IN A MECHANICAL WAY THAT THESE VERY DETAILS WERE CONSIDERED BY THE AO, THEREFORE, THE L D.CIT IS PRECLUDED TO LOOK INTO THIS ASPECT WHILE EXERCISING POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AS OBSERV ED EARLIER, THE LD.AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY WHICH WAS REQUIR ED AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNT S, AND THEREFORE THE LD.COMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN COGNIZANCE UN DER SECTION 263 AND SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT FOR CONDUCTING FRESH I NQUIRY AND FOR PASSING OF FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL. IT IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. SD/- SD/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (RAJPAL YAD AV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDEN T AHMEDABAD: DATED 28/01/2021 S. K. SINHA/VK THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28/01/2021