Charm Investment Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi V. PCIT-2 , New Delhi

ITA 3505/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1670 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M BARNWAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Fair market value; TDS; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 244A; 115JB; 55A; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3505/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15) M/S CHARM INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 3927/28 PADAM SINGH ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005 PAN AAACC 5167B VS. PR.CIT - 2, R.NO.394, CR. BUILDING, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. RAJ KUMAR, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. M. BARNWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 07.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01.05.2020 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST ORDER DATED 22.03.2019 PASSED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, DELHI {PR.CIT} FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AND CHAL LENGES THE ACTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT IN PASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) WHEREIN IT WAS HEL D THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 30.06.2016 WAS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS BEING PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE AND WAS SET ASIDE. 2 ITA NO.3505/DEL/2019 M/S CHARM INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT 2.0 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY IS NON- BANKING FINANCE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING LOANS TO ITS CLIENTS AND FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND PROPERTIES. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,63,2 90/-. HOWEVER, TAX HAD BEEN PAID ON BOOK PROFIT OF RS.16,07,775/- UNDE R PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT AN INCOME OF RS.1,68,565/- AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT O F INTEREST U/S 244A OF THE ACT. 2.1 SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD. PR. CIT ISSUED A SHOW CAU SE NOTICE DATED 21.02.2019 AND INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.91,8 34/- ON SALE OF A CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL FLAT WHEREIN, AS PER THE SALE DE ED, THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS RS.48,57,600/- WHEREAS THE SALE CON SIDERATION SAID TO BE RECEIVED WAS ONLY RS.44,00,000/-. THUS, AS PER TH E LD. PR. CIT, SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WOULD COME INTO PLAY. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE STATED THAT THE AO WAS BOUND TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) BUT SINCE THE SAME WAS NOT D ONE, THE ORDER WAS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. IT WAS ALSO STATED IN THE SH OW CAUSE NOTICE THAT THE 3 ITA NO.3505/DEL/2019 M/S CHARM INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT COST OF IMPROVEMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.6,88,500/- WAS I N THE NATURE OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AND DID NOT QUALIFY TOWARDS COST OF IMPROVEMENT. 2.2 IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, IT WAS S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE HAD BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER (AO) DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN THE DETAIL S OF COSTS OF IMPROVEMENT WERE DULY SUBMITTED AND THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAD ALLOWED THE SAME AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION. IT WAS ALSO SUB MITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPLICATION OF SEC.50C OF THE ACT WAS NOT M ANDATORY IN ALL CASES AND THAT THE AO HAD CHOSEN NOT TO APPLY THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 50C IN HIS CASE AND THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO WAS NOT M ANDATORY. 2.3 HOWEVER, THE LD. PR. CIT DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER P ASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN PASSED WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRIES INTO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER BECAUSE THE AO HA D FAILED TO MAKE THE MANDATORY REFERENCE TO THE DVO, THE SAME WAS PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. PR. CIT ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT O F RS.6,88,500/-. THE LD. PR. CIT WENT ON TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS BEING PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE 4 ITA NO.3505/DEL/2019 M/S CHARM INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT REVENUE AND WAS, THEREFORE, TO BE SET ASIDE. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH BY CONDUCTI NG PROPER ENQUIRIES. 2.4 AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW BE FORE THE ITAT CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND HAS R AISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASS TT. ORDER U/S. 143(3) DTD. 30.06.16 IS NEITHER ERRONEOU S NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, HENCE THE L D. PCIT WRONGLY ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE I.T . ACT. 2. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD . PCIT EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION BY INVOKING SEC.263 FOR H OLDING THAT THE A.O. SHOULD HAD REFERRED THE VALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT AT NEHRU APARTMENTS, KALKAJI NEW DELHI TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC.50C OF TH E I.T. ACT. 2.1 THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE OF CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF NEHRU APARTM ENT, KALKAJI FLAT, SINCE EXAMINED BY THE A.O. U/S. 143(3 ) AS PER LAW, HENCE, THE SAID ORDER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THIS ISSU E AND SPECIALLY W.R.T. SEC.50C OF THE I.T. ACT. 2.2 THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DIRECTIONS OF PCIT TO A.O. FOR FRAMING THE ASSTT. AFRESH BY CO NDUCTING PROPER ENQUIRIES STANDS VITIATED IN VIEW OF SPECIFI C FINDINGS OF PCIT THAT THE A.O. SHOULD HAD REFERRED THE VALUA TION OF FLAT TO DVO, THUS BINDING THE A.O. TO THAT EXTENT THEREB Y MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT ON THIS ISS UE BY THE A.O. AS PER LAW, AS STANDS DECIDED BY HIM. 5 ITA NO.3505/DEL/2019 M/S CHARM INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT 3. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE L D. PCIT EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION BY INVOKING SEC.263 IN HO LDING THAT ON THE ISSUE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.6,88,500/ -, THE A.O. HAS MERELY RELIED UPON THE VOUCHERS SUBMITTED BY THE COMPANY AND HE DID NOT EXAMINE THE NATURE OF EXPENS ES THAT WILL QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION FOR CALCULATING CAP ITAL GAIN. 3.1 THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE O RDER OF A.O. ON THE ISSUE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.6,88 ,500/- IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F REVENUE. 4. THAT THE PCIT FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON MERI TS FOR A FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S.263 THAT TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED ON COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.6,88,500/-, T HE ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT COVERED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THER EFORE, ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION ON THIS ISSUE IS OUTSIDE T HE SCOPE OF IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. THAT ON RAISING ONLY TWO ISSUES IN SCN I.E. U/ S.50C AND EXAMINATION OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT FOR CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF FLAT, THE LD. PCIT ERRED IN LAW AND ON MERITS IN SETTING ASIDE THE COMPLETE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHIC H TANTAMOUNT TO SETTING ASIDE ALL OTHER ISSUES AND TO TAL ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON OTHER I SSUES. 3. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTE D THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAD WRONGLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.263 BY HOL DING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE VALUATIO N OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT TO THE DVO FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC.50C OF THE ACT. O UR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION AND IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE WORD USED IS MAY AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT MANDATORY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED 6 ITA NO.3505/DEL/2019 M/S CHARM INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DULY RAISED QUERY ON THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FOR THIS PURPOSE OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142 (1) OF THE ACT DATED 16.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY. OUR ATTENTION WAS A LSO DRAWN TO THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 21.06.2016 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE SALE OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. THE LD . AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DULY EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON BEING SATISFIED HAD NOT MADE ANY REFERENCE TO THE DVO AS THE DIFFERENCE WAS OF ONLY RS.4,57,600/- WHICH WAS APPROXIMATELY A DIFFEREN CE OF 10.4% OF THE DECLARED VALUE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT, THEREFORE, TH ERE WAS ERRONEOUS. 3.1 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS ERRONEOUS PAR T OF THE LD. PR. CIT TO HAVE INVOKED EXPLANATION-2 TO SECTION-263 OF THE AC T BECAUSE SUCH EXPLANATION CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WHERE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE WITHOUT ENQUIRY OR VERIFICATION OR WHERE RELIEF IS ALLOWED O R WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY DIRECTION OR INSTRUCTION OF THE BOARD OR WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR THE HONBLE APEX 7 ITA NO.3505/DEL/2019 M/S CHARM INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT COURT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE DID NOT FALL IN ANY OF THE FOUR CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH EXPLANATION-2 CAN BE INV OKED. 3.2 IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE EXTENT OF ENQ UIRY IS TO BE DECIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SAME CANNOT BE DETERM INED BY THE LD. PR. CIT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER DOES NOT DISCUSS THE ISSUE IN DETAIL, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT NO ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE LD. PR. CIT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED THE ENQUIRY HIMSELF WHICH HE D ID NOT DO AND THAT HE HAD MERELY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAK E THE ENQUIRY WHICH WAS UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. SIMILAR ARGUMEN TS WERE RAISED FOR OTHER GROUND ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SET AS IDE I.E. THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN EXAMINING THE N ATURE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURE. 3.3 REGARDING THE THIRD REASON STATED BY THE L D. PR. CIT FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I.E., NON DEDUCTION OF T DS ON COST OF IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURE, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED IN THE SHOW CAUSE ITS ELF AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND NO DIRECTION COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. AUTHORIZED 8 ITA NO.3505/DEL/2019 M/S CHARM INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT REPRESENTATIVE PRAYED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PRESE RVED TO BE QUASHED AS THE LD. PR. CIT HAD EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTIONAL IN EXERCISING HIS REVISIONARY POWERS. 4.0 IN RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 263 HAD BEEN RIGHTLY INVOKED BY THE LD. PR. CIT AND THAT IT WAS A PPARENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THERE WAS A COMPLETE LACK OF E NQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF COMPU TATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. 5.0 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COPIE S OF SALE DEED AND PURCHASE DEED AND ALSO THE BILL PERTAINING TO RENOV ATION WORK CARRIED OUT IN THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A LOWER AMOUNT AS SALE CONSIDERAT ION THAN AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED FOR THE PURPOSES OF STAM P DUTY. THE LD. PR. CIT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO AS THERE WAS A VARIATION IN THE TWO VALUATIONS AND THAT 9 ITA NO.3505/DEL/2019 M/S CHARM INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A REFE RENCE TO THE DVO WAS AN ERROR AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BECA ME ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HOWEVER , THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(II) LAY DOWN THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLA IMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUATION ADOPTED AND AS SESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (I) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE TRANSFER, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO VALUATI ON OFFICER. THUS, GOING BY THE LANGUAGE USED, IT IS NOT MANDATORY IN THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO IN ALL CASES WHERE THE STAMP DU TY VALUATION EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THEREFORE, IT IS OUR CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRON EOUS IN SO FAR AS BEING PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THIS COUNT. FOR, THIS PROPOSITION, WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE ORDER OF THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF JITINDAR S. CHADHA VS. PR. CIT REPORTED IN [2019] 200 TTJ (DEL) 98 WHEREIN IT HAD BEEN HELD THA T THE POWERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 55A OF THE ACT WERE DISCRETION ARY AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN TAKE PLAUSIBLE VIEW OF THE MAT TER. THUS, IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, IT IS OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THA T BY NOT REFERRING THE 10 ITA NO.3505/DEL/2019 M/S CHARM INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT ISSUE OF VALUATION TO THE DVO, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS AND THIS DISCRETION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TERMED AS BEING ERRONEOUS AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE L D. PR. CIT. 5.1 SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY SUBMITTED T HE DETAILS OF RENOVATION WHICH WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE FLAT SOLD BY HIM AND TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, BY TAKING ONE OF THE POSSIBLE TWO VIEWS, ACCEPTED THE SAME. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT M AKE ANY ENQUIRY WHAT SO EVER IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLE D FOR CERTAIN DETAILS AND THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THEM. ON THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BEING SATISFIED WITH THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK ONE OF THE POS SIBLE VIEWS TO WHICH THE LD. PR. CIT MIGHT NOT BEEN IN AGREEMENT BUT WHICH TH E LD. PR. CIT HAS NO POWER TO CHANGE IF THE SAME HAS BEEN TAKEN AFTER EN QUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS BEING PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REV ENUE. 5.2 THE ISSUE OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX ON THE EXPEN DITURE CLAIMED TOWARDS COST OF IMPROVEMENT WAS NEVER A PART OF THE S HOW CAUSE NOTICE AND A PERUSAL OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT 11 ITA NO.3505/DEL/2019 M/S CHARM INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT ALSO MAKES IT APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CON FRONTED WITH THIS ISSUE AND WAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND T O THE SAME. THE IMPUGNED ORDER ALSO DOES NOT MENTION THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS LATER REQUIRED TO RESPOND ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, THERE WAS A COMPLETE LACK OF NATURAL JUSTICE ON THE PART OF THE LD. PR. CIT WHIL E SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THIS REASON. THEREFORE, WE ARE AFRAID, THE SAME CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A REASON FOR TREATING THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS. THIS IS IN LINE WITH THE JUDGMENT RENDERE D BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AMITABH BACCHAN IN CI VIL APPEAL NO.5009 OF 2016 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C) NO.11621 OF 2009] WH EREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WITHOUT PROVIDING A PROPER OPPORTUNITY ON THE ISSUE THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT EXERCISE THE REVISIONARY POWERS . 5.3 THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER FAILS TO PASS THE TESTS LAID DOWN WITH RESPECT TO THE EXERCISE OF THE REVISIONARY POWERS BY THE COMMISSIONER AND, THEREFO RE, WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 12 ITA NO.3505/DEL/2019 M/S CHARM INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. PCIT 6.0. IN THE FINAL RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/05/2020. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED: 01/05/2020 PK/PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI