Sri.V.I.Roy, Ernakulam V. ITO, Aluva

ITA 36/COCH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68903 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSAN GEORGEMR M ANIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 36/ COCH/ 2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APELALTER TIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH , COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JM & B. R. S BASKARAN, AM ITA NO. 36 /COCH/ 2013 (ASST YEAR 2007 - 08 ) SHRI V. I. ROY VADAKKEN HOUSE KURAPURAM (PO) PALLIKKARA PIN 583 565 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 , ALUVA ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ADEPV 4701E ASSESSEE BY SHRI T M SREEDHARAN REVENUE BY SMT SUSAN GEORGE/MR M ANIL KUMAR, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING 04 - 06 - 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02 - 08 - 2013 OR D ER PER B.R. BASKARAN, AM: THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 5.3.2012 PASSED BY THE LD CIT - II, KOCHI U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND IT RELATES TO THE AY 2007 - 08. THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REVISION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE L D ADMINISTRATIVE COM MISSIONER. 2. THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE REVISION ORDER IS DATED 05 - 03 - 2012, THE ASSESSEE COULD GET A COPY OF THE SAME BY 28 TH DECEMBER, 2012 ONLY AND HENCE THE APPEAL WAS FILED O N 04 TH FEBRUARY, 2013. THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE PUT FORTH TO THE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE AND THE LD D.R, AFTER MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES, SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 16 TH APRIL, 2013 WRITTEN BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TECH.), WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THE A CKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE OF THE ORDER U/S 263 IN THE CASE OF SRI V.I ROY FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 IS NOT TRACEABLE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A PETITION SEEKING ITA NO. 36/ COCH/ 2013 2 CONDONATION OF DELAY, IF ANY, IN FILING THE APPEAL. IN THE SAID PETITION, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT HE CAME TO KNOW OF THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT, BUT DID NOT RECEIVE THE SAME. HENCE, HE MADE AN APPLICATION ON 26.12.2012 TO THE LD CIT SEEKING A COPY OF THE ORDER AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN ON 28.12.2012. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD DISCONTI NUED THE BUSINESS DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 AND HE DID NOT ENGAGE IN ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES FOR A LONG PERIOD DUE TO BACK PAIN. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY, IF ANY, IS FOR BONAFIDE REASONS AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY LAPSE OR OMISSION ON HIS PART. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES ON THE QUESTION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. ADMITTEDLY, THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY PROOF TO SHOW THE DATE OF SERVICE OF REVISION ORDER. THE FACTS SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED A COPY OF THE ORDER AND THE SAM E WAS SUPPLIED TO HIM BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER ONLY ON 28.12.2012. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION, BUT TO BELIEVE THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF COPY OF ORDER. THESE FACTS, IN OUR VIEW, SHOW THAT THERE EXIST ED A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE STATED I N BRIEF . THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 143(3) OF THE I T ACT ON 18.12.2009. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH A COMPANY NAM ED M/S ROAD BUILDER (M) SDN BHD IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE ABOVE SAID COMPANY TO UNDERTAKE QUARRYING OPERATIONS IN THE LAND OWNED BY HIM. PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED LEASE RENT OF RS.21.38 LACS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE WA S REQUI RED TO LAY AN ACCESS ROAD HAVING MINIMUM WIDTH OF SIX METERS IN ORDER TO ITA NO. 36/ COCH/ 2013 3 ENABLE THE ABOVE SAID COMPANY TO OPERATE LORRIES AND VEHICLES IN THE SITE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WA S ALSO REQUIRED TO CLEAR ALL OBSTACLES OR DISRUPTIONS FOR MAKING FREE ENTRY TO THE LAND. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE INCURRED A SUM OF RS.9,52,300/ - FOR THE ABOVE SAID PURPOSES AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD EARTH WORK EXPENSES . 5. ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS, THE LD ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED THE SAID EXPENSES TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD S , EVICTION OF TENANT S, SO AS TO MAKE THE L AND ACCESSIBLE. THE LD CIT, BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL RAJMAHAL V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (1985) 152 ITR 218 (KAR), TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN THE ASSESSEE ENTERED IN TO BUSINESS WOULD BE CAPITAL IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE L D CIT TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE AO DID NOT CONDUCT A PROPER ENQUIRY IN TO THE ACTUAL NATURE OF THE EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, THE L D CIT SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AO T O ENQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF EXPENSES IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL RAJMAHAL (REFERRED SUPRA). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE L D CIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 . THE L D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSING O FFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, HAS MAD E SPECIFIC ENQUIR Y ABOUT THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.9,52,300/ - UNDER THE HEAD EARTH WORK EXPENSES . IN THAT REGARD, THE AO EXAMINED THE LEASE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S ROAD BUILDER (M) SDN BHD ALSO . AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION S GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER MAKING AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/ - TOWARDS DEFICIENCIES IN MAINTENANCE OF VOUCHERS. THE LD COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED THE ITA NO. 36/ COCH/ 2013 4 EXPENDITURE ON LAY ING ROAD S AND CLEARING OBSTACLES IN ORDER TO FACILI TATE THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND H ENCE THE E XPENDITURE INCURRED THEREON IS REVENUE IN NATURE. THE LD COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL RAJMAHAL (SUPRA) IN SUPPORT OF HIS VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE IS CAPITAL IN NATURE . HOWEVER, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF KERALA, IN THE CASE OF PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF A GRICULTURAL INCOME - TAX (1994) 205 ITR 364 , HAS RESPECTFULLY DISSENTED FROM THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE. FURTHER, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT , WHERE EXPENDITURE IS INC URRED FOR OBTAINING AN ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING BENEFIT, EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE NATURE OF THE ADVANTAGE IN A COMMERCIAL SENSE AND IF THE ADVANTAGE CONSISTS MERELY IN FACILITATING THE ASSESSEE'S TRADING OPERATIONS OR ENABLING THE MANAGEMENT AND C ONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS TO BE CARRIED ON MORE EFFICIENTLY OR MORE PROFITABLY, WHILE LEAVING THE FIXED CAPITAL UNTOUCHED, THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE HELD TO BE ON RE VENUE ACCOUNT, EVEN THOUGH THE ADVANTAGE MAY ENDURE FOR AN INDEFINITE FUTURE. ACC ORDINGLY, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE, SINCE THE AO HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED REVISION ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE ON LAYING OF ROADS AND REMOVAL OF OBSTACLES FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ORDER TO EARN INCOME. HENCE, THE SAME CONSTITUTES CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THIS ASPECT IN A PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND HENCE THERE IS LACK OF APPLICATION OF ITA NO. 36/ COCH/ 2013 5 MIND ON THE PART OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD D.R CONTENDED THAT THE LD CIT WAS JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 263 OF THE I T ACT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FEEL IT PERTINENT TO REFE R TO THE DECISION RENDERED BY T HE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. V CIT (321 ITR 92), WHEREIN THE COURT HAS DISCUSSED ABOUT THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 AS UNDER: SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 EMPOWERS THE COMMISSIONER TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT AND, IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, TO PASS AN ORDE R UPON HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER AN ENQUIRY AS IS NECESSARY, ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. THE KEY WORDS THAT ARE USED BY SECTION 263 ARE THAT THE ORDER MUST BE CONSIDERED BY THE CO MMISSIONER TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SEVERAL JUDGMENTS TO WHICH IT IS NOW NECESSARY TO TURN. IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACT OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, WOULD BE AN OR DER FALLING IN THAT CATEGORY. THE EXPRESSION PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD, IT IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO A LOSS OF TAX. WHAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IS EXPLAINED IN THE JUDGMENT O F THE SUPREME COURT (HEAD NOTE) : THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER, CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME - TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME - TAX OFF ICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL ITA NO. 36/ COCH/ 2013 6 TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND EXPLAINED IN A SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. MAX INDIA LTD. [2007] 295 ITR 282. THERE MAY NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE REVISION PROCEEDING SHA LL NOT LIE ON THE ISSUES ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AFTER EXAMINING AND APPLYING HIS MIND ON IT. IF THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY ON ANY OF THE PERTINENT ISSUE, IT WILL RESULT IN LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND. 9. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE NOTICE THE AO HA S MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF RS.9,52,300/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD EARTH WORK EXPENSES. 2. THE CASE WAS POSTED ON VARIOUS DATES. SRI SAGESH KUMAR., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND ASSE SSEE APPEARED. THE CASE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THEM. AS PER THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A TOTAL RENT OF RS. 21,38,195/ - . ALSO A SUM OF RS. 9,52,300/ - IS SEEN DEBITED TOWARDS EARTH WORK EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O CLARIFY THESE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ROAD BUILDER (M) SDN BHD, MALAYSIA FOR QUARRYING OPERATIONS IN THE ASSESSEES PREMISES. AS PER CLAUSE 13 & 15 OF THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MAKE APPROACH RO ADS, EVICTION OF NEIGHBORING TENANT, FENCING OF THE PROPERTY ETC. FOR WHICH HE HAD TO INCUR HUGE AMOUNT. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE AGREEMENT AND ALSO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS SOME MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSE E. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE PROPER VOUCHERS FOR THE EARTH WORK EXPENSES. CONSIDERING ALL ASPECTS OF THE CASE, A LUMPSUM ADDITION OF R. 50,000/ - IS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME TO CURB ANY POSSIBLE INFLATION IN THE EXPENDITURE TO WHICH THE ASS ESSEE AGREED. THESE DISCUSSIONS MADE BY THE AO SHOW THAT HE HAS EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIS - - VIS THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S ROAD BUILDER (M) SDN BHD, MALAYSIA , WHICH UNDERT OOK THE WORK OF QUARRYING OPERATIONS IN T HE ASSESSEES LAND. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT T HE AO HAS MADE A S PECIFIC REFERENCE TO CL AUSE S 13 & 15 OF THE AGREEMENT , REFERRED ABOVE, AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO LAY APPROACH ROADS, EVICTION OF NEIGHBORING TENANT, LAY OF FENCING OF THE PROPERT Y ETC. THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO, A FTER GOING ITA NO. 36/ COCH/ 2013 7 THROUGH THE AGREEMENT AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, HAS COME TO THE CONCLU SION THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE AND HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON LAYING OF ROADS AND CLEARING OF OBSTACLES IS REVENUE IN NATURE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE PROPER VOUCHERS FOR THE SAID EXPENSES, THE AO HAS MADE A N ADHOC ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/ - . 1 0. THE NEXT QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS. WE NOTICE THAT T HE LD CIT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL RAJMAHAL (SUPRA) TO SUPPORT HIS VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE IS CAPITAL IN NATURE . THE L D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF KERALA , IN THE CASE OF PLANTAT ION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD (REFERRED SUPRA) , HAS DISSENTED FROM THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE. T HE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE ABOVE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE I NCURRED BY AN ASSESSEE FOR FACILITATING TRADING OPERATIONS OR ENABLING THE MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS TO BE CARRIED ON MORE EFFICIENTLY OR MORE PROFITABLY, WHILE LEAVING THE FIXED CAPITAL UNTOUCHED, WOULD BE A REVENUE EXPENDITURE, EVEN THOUGH T HE ADVANTAGE MAY ENDURE FOR AN INDEFINITE FUTURE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO INCUR THE IMPUGNED EXPENSES IN ORDER TO ENABLE EFFICIENT CARRYING OF QUARRYING OPERATIONS. 11. TH E FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS SHOW THAT THE VIEW ENTERTAINED BY T HE AO IN CONNECTION WITH ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF CLAIM OF RS.9,52,300/ - UNDER THE HEAD EARTH WORK EXPENSES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW S . U NDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION ITA NO. 36/ COCH/ 2013 8 RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY (REFERRED SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING SEC. 263 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED REVISION ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF AUG 2013. SD/ - SD/ - (N.R.S. GANESAN) ( B.R. BASKARAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 2 ND AUG 2013 RAJ* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN