CUSTOM CAPSULES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

ITA 3564/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0376 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATAP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RONAK G DOSHI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 32; 263; 144

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), AND RAJESH KUMAR, ( AM ) ./ I.T.A. NO . 3564 / MUM/20 1 7 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 12 - 13 ) CUSTOM CAPSULES PVT.LTD, 1001, DALAMAL HOUSE , 10 TH F LOOR , NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 / VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL - 4, ROOM NO. 663 , 6 TH FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAACC6203G / APPELLANT BY: SHRI RONAK G DOSHI / RESPONDENT BY SHRI PRATAP SINGH / DATE OF HEARING : 6 .7. 20 1 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 . 08. 201 7 / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT , CENTRAL - 4, MUMBAI D A T ED 15.3.2017 P ASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND IT IS PERTAINING TO A.Y. 200 9 - 10 . 2. ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY LD.CIT SETTING ITA NO . 3564 / M/1 7 2 ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE AO TO MAKE ASSESSMENT DENOVO VIDE ORDER DATED 15.3.2017. 3 . THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.SECTION 144C OF THE ACT BY THE AO VIDE ORDER DA T ED 29.2.2016 ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.7,10,57,88 4/ - AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.6,90,42,520/ - . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (PCIT) BY EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 EXPLANATION - 2 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS THAT AO HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT WIT HOUT INQUIRY RESULTING THE ASSESSMENT BEING ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AFTER I SSU ING NOTICE DATED 11.2.2016 U/S 263 OF THE ACT WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: TO, CUSTOM CAPSULES PVT. LTD., 1011, DALAMAL HOUSE, J AMNALAL B AJAJ ROAD, NARI MAN POINT M UMBAI 400 021. SIR, SUB: PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 OF THE LT. ACT, 1961 - A.Y. 2012 - 13 - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - REG. (PA : AAACP4134F) KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE SUBJECT. 2. ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13, IT IS NOTI CED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED ULS 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) OF THE I T ACT, VIDE ORDER DATED 29.02.2016, DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OFRS.7,01,76,650 / - 3. THE STAT EMENT SHOWING THE WORKING OF DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME TAX ACT [AS PER ANNEXU RE TO CLAUSE 14 TO THE FORM 3CD ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURN] REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BALANCE 50% OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U /S 32(1)(IIA) AMOUNTING TO RS.2 ,1 6 , 941/ - ON ITA NO . 3564 / M/1 7 3 THE ADDITIONS MADE IN ASSETS DURING THE SECOND HALF OF THE FINANCIAL YEA R 2010 - 1 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2011 - 12. 4. THE QUANTUM OF PERMISSIBLE ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION UNDER CLAUSE (I) AND [IIA] TO SECTION 32(1 ) IS LIMITED TO 50% IF THE ASSET HAS BEEN PUT TO USE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS FOR A PERIOD LESS THAZN ONE HUNDRED A ND EIGHTY DAYS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. FURTHER AS PER THE THIRD PROVISO TO CLAUSE (II) OF THE SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 32, THE BALANCE 50% OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ADMISSIBLE UNDER CLAUSE (IIA) IS ALLOWABLE IN THE SUCCEEDING PREVIOUS YEAR, BUT THEN T HIS PROVISO IS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 AND IS EFFECTIVE PROSPECTIVELY FROM 01.04.2016 ONLY. THEREFORE, THE BALANCE 50% OF THE DEPRECIATION RELATING TO ASSETS ADDED IN SECOND HALF OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010 - 11, IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN A.Y. 2012 - 13. 5. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,16,941/ - BEING THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS IN ASSETS MADE DURING THE SECOND HALF OF T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010 - 11 RELEVANT TO A. Y. 2011 - 12. 6. I N VI EW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1), WHICH HAS RENDERED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED VI] S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT ERRONEOUS, IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVE NUE , IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE I T. ACT. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD 'NOT BE REVISED U/S.263 OF THE L.T. ACT, 1961. YOUR OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, TO THE PROPOSED REVISION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY BE FILED BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON OR BEFORE 24.02.2017. 7. THE DATE OF HEA RING IS FIXED FOR THIS PURPOSE ON 24.02.2017. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO APPEAR PERSONALLY OR THROUGH AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE SAID DATE AT 12.20 PM IN MY CHAMBER (ROOM NO.663, AAYAKAR BHAVAN) YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD ( K K SINGH) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, (CENTRAL) - 4, MUMBAI. ITA NO . 3564 / M/1 7 4 THE SAID NOTICE WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 22.4.2017 WHICH IS ALSO PRODUCED BELOW: 1 ) THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN THIS REGARD WAS COMPLETED AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE DETAILS AND EXPLANATI ON SUBMITTED TO THE LD AO. THEREFORE YOUR HONOUR'S CONTENTION TO REVISE THE ORDER IS UNWARRANTED. IN THIS REGARD WE FURTHER SUBMIT AS UNDER: 1. 1) AS REGARDS YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECATION U/ S.32( 1 )(IIA) ON ADDITIONS MADE IN ASSETS DURIN G THE SECOND HALF OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010 - 11 RELEVANT TO A. Y. 2011 - 12 AMOUNTING TO RS.2, 16,941/ - IN VIEW OF THE THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 32(1)(IIA), ALLOWING SUCH A CLAIM IS EFFECTIVE PROSPECTIVELY FROM 01.04.2016 ONLY AND THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID AM OUNT OF RS.2, 16,941/ - RELATING TO ASSETS ADDED IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010 - 11 IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN A. Y. 2012 - 13, WE SUBMIT AS UNDER: 'THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS.1,82,948/ - AS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION PERTAINING TO DEPRECIATION AT 10% U/S. 32(1)(IIA) IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS MADE TO ELIGIBLE ASSETS DURING THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 2011 AND USED IN THAT YEAR FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS ON WHICH SUCH ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED AT 10% ONLY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AS SESSEE' HAD FILED THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ISSUED TO IT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT WHICH HAS DISCLOSED THE BASIS ON WHICH DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED U/S 32 OF THE ACT. 1.2 ) SECTION 32( 1 )(IIA} WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT, 2002 W.E.F. 01 - 04 - 2003. IT WAS INTRODUCED AS AN INCENTIVE FOR FRESH INVESTMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR. SECTION 32( 1 )(IIA} AND SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 32( 1 )(II ) NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER WHICH FULFILLS THIS OBJECTIVE. THE OBJECT OF SECTIO N 32( 1 )(IIA} COULD BE ACHIEVED ONLY WHEN HALF OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION REMAINING UNAVAILABLE [IN VIEW OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 32(1)(II)] TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION IS ALLOWED IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. THIS INTERPRE TATION ALSO GETS SUPPORT FROM THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC BAR AGAINST SUCH A CLAIM UNDER SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 32(1)(II}. THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION. 32(1)(II} ONLY CREATES A RESTRICTION WITH RESPECT TO THE TIME OVER WHICH ADDITIONAL DEPRECAT ION COULD BE CLAIMED. 1.3 ) THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 32( 1 )(II} DOES NOT AFFECT THE VESTED RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WHICH IT GETS BY MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT. ONE MAY STATE THAT ITA NO . 3564 / M/1 7 5 THE ASSESSEE EARNS HI S ENTITLEMENT TOWARDS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AS SOON AS HE INCURS A COST ON ACQUISITION OF PLANT OR MACHINERY. THE ENTITLEMENT TOWARDS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CRYSTALLIZES WITH THE EVENT OF INCURRENCE OF COST ON PLANT OR MACHINERY AND HAS NO RELATION WITH THE WDV OF THE BLOCK OF ASSET. IN OTHER WORDS, A RIGHT TO CLAIM FULL ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION VESTS WITH AN ASSESSEE AS SOON AS HE INCURS COST ON ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. 1.4 ) THEREFORE T HE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, HAS CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/ S.32( 1 )(IIA ) THIS VIEW IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERE D THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PCIT INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 - EXPLANTION - 2 OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE ORDER PASSED WITHOUT MAKING INQUIRIES OR VERIFICATION BY THE AO, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE OR THE OR DER IS PASSED ALLOWING ANY RELIEF WITHOUT INQUIRING INTO THE CLAIM, THE ORDER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,82,948/ - . THE ASSESSEE MADE THE ADDI TION IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 AND ACCORDINGLY CLAIM ED DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 10% WHICH IS 50% OF THE NORMAL RATE OF DEPRECIATION AS PER THE I.T. RULES AS THE ASSETS WAS PUT TO USE IS LE SS THAN 18 2 DAYS AND REMAINING 50% OF THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,82,948/ - WAS CLAIMED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 W.E.F 1.4.2003. 4. THE LD. AR VEHEM ENTLY SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED DEPRECIATION . EVEN ON MERITS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO ITA NO . 3564 / M/1 7 6 THIS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AS IT HAS ONLY CLAIMED 50% DEPRECIATION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 AS THE ASSETS WAS PUT TO U S E FO R LESS THAN 18 2 DAYS AND CLAIM OF REMAINING 50% DEPRECIATION MADE IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E.2012 - 13 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT . 5. THE LD. AR WHILE DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 4.1.2016 FILED BEFORE THE DCIT SUBMI TT ED THAT IN RESPON SE TO QUERY FROM THE AO, THE DETAILS OF ITS ASSETS ALONG WITH THE COPY OF BILLS QUA FIXED ASSETS WERE FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE VARIOUS NECESSARY ANNEXURE TO FORM NO.3CD WHICH DEALS WITH CALCULATION OF DEPRECIATION AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THE ALLEGATION OF THE PCIT THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY TO THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION RESULTING INTO ASSESSMENT BEING ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WAS TOTALLY WRONG AND UNFOUNDED. THE LD.AR ALSO CONTENDED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS THAT THERE WAS LACK OF INQUIRY RENDERING THE ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE . IN SUPPORT OF HI S SUBMISSIONS THE LD.AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S GABRIEL INDIA LTD. ( 1993 ) 203 ITR 108 BOM; AND THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF SMALL WONDER INDUSTRIES V/S CIT IN ITA NO.2464/MUM/2013 (AY - 2009 - 10) DATED 24.2.2017. EVEN ON MERITS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO BAR ON THE ASSE S SEE TO CA R RY FORWARD THE ADDITION AL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(1) (IIA) OF THE ACT TO CLAIM THE S A ME IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN VI EW OF THE FACT THAT IN THE YEAR OF ADDITION TO ITA NO . 3564 / M/1 7 7 FIXED ASSETS, THE DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED AT 50% OF THE NORMAL DEPRECIATION AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PUT TO USE IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE YEAR . IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTIONS , THE LD.AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF KARNATAK A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S RITTAL INDIA(P) LTD REPORTED IN 380 ITR 423) ( KAR). FINALLY, THE LD.AR, IN VIEW OF THE FAC T S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA S E AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE VARIOUS AUTHORITIES SUBMI TTED THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS WRONG AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND SHOULD BE QUASHED . 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF PCIT BY SUBMITTIN G THAT TH E SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO THAT THE SAME WA S ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE . LD DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PCIT HAS GIVEN ONLY DIRECTION TO LOOK INTO THE MATTER AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACTS AND LAW , SO NO PREJU DICE WAS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE . THE LD. DR REQUESTED THE BENCH TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE PCIT. 7 . WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND CASE LAW AS RELIED UPON BY T H E ASSESSEE . WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION TO THE FIXED ASSETS IN THIS CASE WAS MADE IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 AND THE DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED AT 50% OF THE NORMAL RATE OF DEPRECIATION AS THE ASSETS W AS PUT TO USE FOR LESS THAN 182 DAYS. THE SECOND ASPECT IS THAT THE ASSE S S E E CLAIMED DEPRECI A TION AT THE RATE OF 50% OF THE NORMAL DEPRECIATION AND CARRIED FORWARD THE ITA NO . 3564 / M/1 7 8 REMAINING 50% TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR 2012 - 13 AND CLAIMED THE SAME IN THAT YEAR WHICH IS CURRENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 UNDER THE CLAUSE (IIA) OF THE SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. WE ALSO FIND THAT EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S , THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY SUBMITTED ALL THE DETAILS AND SCHEDULE OF DEPRECIATION ALONG WITH T HE BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CLAIM BEFORE THE AO AND T HE AO THEREAFTER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, THE TWIN CONDITIONS ARE TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE EXERCISING THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE A CT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE . BUT IN THE PRESENT , THE AO HAS NECESSARY DETAILS QUA THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,82,948/ - AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1)(II A ) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE FULLY AGREED WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF LD.AR THAT IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT DUE TO LACK OF INQUIRY THE PREJUDIC E L IS CAUSED TO THE REVENUE WHEN THE ISSUE WA S NOT DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER OF AO. THE ASSESSEE FINDS SUPPORTS FROM THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GABRIEL INDIA LTD(SUPRA), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER HE DID NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD . E VEN OTHERWIS E, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE , WHICH IS AS PER LAW UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT , CANNOT BE SAID TO BE HAVE CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS AS NO PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED T O THE REVENUE AS TH E ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ACT WHICH IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY NUMBER ITA NO . 3564 / M/1 7 9 OF DECISIONS. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED DECISIONS ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF PCIT AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THE CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AS BEIN G WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION . 8 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21ST AUG , 201 7 . AUG, 201 7 SD SD (JOGINDER SINGH ) ( RAJESH KUMAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 21ST AUG , 201 7 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED T O : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. 6. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI