M/s Kudu Knit Processors P. Ltd., Ludhiana V. JCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 370/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2521 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Business income; Audit objection; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 80IB; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.370/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) M/S KUDU KNIT PROCESSORS P. LTD., VS. THE J.C.I.T., C-219, PHASE-VIII, FOCAL POINT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA. PAN: AABCK4345A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUBHASH AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.01.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, LUDHIANA DATED 24.3.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T THE ACT) WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DATED 21.12.2011 AT AN INCOME OF RS.1,07,20,293/-. LATER ON, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I, LUDHIANA CALLS FOR ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND EXAMINED THE SAME. A 2 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS ON 22.1.2014. THE SUM AND SUBS TANCE OF THE SAID NOTICE WAS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX NOTED THAT A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 26.9.2008 AND THE ASSESSEE SURRENDER ED AN AMOUNT OF RS.80,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CLAIM . IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.39,02,098/- BEING 30% PROFITS DERIVED DURING THE YEAR. THE SAID DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED INCLUDING THE INCOME OF RS.80,50,000/- SURRENDERED DURING THE SURVEY. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. AS TH E SURRENDERED INCOME COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PROFI TS DERIVED FROM BUSINESS, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB IS NOT ALLOWABLE ON THE SAME. 3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT WAS DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH TRADI NG AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND AUDIT REPO RT IN FORM NO.10CCB COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT AT RS.39,02,098/-. A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT TOOK PLACE AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE 3 ASSESSEE AS ON 29.2.2008 AND SOME EXCESS STOCK OF MANUFACTURED GOODS WAS FOUND. THE ASSESSEE VIDE IT S LETTER DATED 29.8.2008 SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.80,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK OF KNITTE D CLOTH MANUFACTURED AND PROCESSED. THIS WAY, THE ISSUE ST ANDS DULY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. IN THIS WAY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 4. REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HELD THAT SINCE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT WAS NOT ALL OWABLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONDUCT PROPER EN QUIRY, THEREFORE, THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTI ON 263 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS : (I) FAQUIR MOHAMMAD HAJI HASAN VS. CIT 247 ITR 290 (GUJ) (II) M/S KIM PHARMA (P) LTD. VS. CIT (III) ITA NO.106 OF 2011(P&H) (III) CIT VS. ACTIVE TRADERS (P) LTD., 214 ITR 583 (CAL) (IV) NATIONAL LEGGUARD WORKS VS. CIT 288 ITR 18 (P&H) (V) CIT VS. STERLING FOODS (1984) 150 ITR 292 (VI) HOME TEX VS. CIT (2011) 243 CTR 81. 4 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 BY CIT-I ARE AGAINST THE FACTS AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT HOW TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE JCIT IS ERRONEOUS IN AS MUCH AS PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WHEN THE SAME HAS BEEN PASS ED AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON JUDGMEN TS WHICH ARE IRRELEVANT FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE IN PROCEEDINGS U/ S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT. 4. THAT THE CLAIM U/S 80IB WAS ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED AO ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AND FACTS ON THE RECORD BY DU E APPLICATION OF MIND AND THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR CIT TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. THAT IN ANY CASE THE ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED U/S 26 3 IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR PERMISSION TO A DD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G. 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , FIRST TOOK US TO VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE. PAGE 3 IS THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 19.1.2011 DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, WHEREBY AT POINT NO.3, A COPY OF REPOR T IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF ANY EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10A /10B ETC. AND/OR DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS IS ASKED FOR. PAGE 4 IS THE REPLY OF TH E ASSESSEE DATED 31.1.2011, ANNEXED WITH THE FORM NO.10CCB FOR 5 CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. AT PAGE 5 THE COPY OF FORM NO.10CCB STARTS AND AT PAGE 9 TH E AMOUNT OF SAID CLAIM AMOUNTING TO RS.39,02,098/- BE ING 30% OF RS.1,20,06,994/- IS MENTIONED. PAGE 12 IS T HE LETTER DATED 26.9.2008 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, WHEREBY THE SURRENDER WAS MADE. OUR ATTENTION WAS SPECIFICALLY INVITED TO THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES : I VIPIN KUMAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S KUDU KNIT PRO CESS (P) LTD., VOLUNTARY SURRENDER A SUM OF RUPEES EIGHTY LA CS AND FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY AS INCOME OUT OF OUR MANUFA CTURING BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND RUPEES NINETEEN LACS FIF TY THOUSAND ONLY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OR BUILDING NO.D-359 (TOTAL RUPEES ONE CRORE). THE SURRENDER OF RUPEES E IGHTY LACS FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY (RS.8050000) IS ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK OF KNITTED CLOTH MANUFACTURED AND PROC ESSED BY THE COMPANY FOUND AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. 7. ALL THESE PAGES WERE SHOWN TO US TO EMPHASIZE T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSE SSMENT WAS FULLY AWARE OF ALL THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE RELATI NG TO ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT AND A SP ECIFIC QUERY IN THIS REGARD WAS MADE BY HIM, WHICH WAS DUL Y REPLIED TO BY THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPORTANT FACT HE TRIED TO BRING TO OUR NOTICE WAS THAT THE SURRENDER ITSELF HAVING BEEN MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS INCOME, THERE WAS NO LOGIC IN T REATING THE SAME AS ANY OTHER INCOME. FURTHER, ATTENTION WAS I NVITED TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 13, WHICH WAS A REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A QUERY RAISED BY THE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, POST ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS DATED 6 4.2.2013. IN THIS LETTER, IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT SI NCE SURRENDER WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS INCOME ON LY, THEREFORE, DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT IS ALLOWABLE ON THE SAME. ANOTHER LETTER DATED 5.2.20 13 FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF (AUDIT)(CENTRAL) IS ANNEXED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 1 4, WHEREBY A REPORT IS ANNEXED CLARIFYING THE AUDIT OBJECTIONS RAISED. AT PAGE 16 PAGE 8, IT IS CLARI FIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SURRENDER ITSELF WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME OUT OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF EXCE SS STOCK OF KNITTED CLOTH MANUFACTURED AND PROCESSED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, THEREFORE, TH E DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT WAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THESE PAPERS WERE SHOWN T O US TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN AFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED, WAS QUITE SURE OF THE FAC T THAT THE SURRENDER WAS ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK RELATI NG TO BUSINESS ONLY. IN VIEW OF ALL THIS, IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT THIS IS NEITHER A CASE OF NO ENQUIRY NOR A CASE OF DIVERGENT VIEWS. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SURRENDER WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THERE CANNOT BE A DIFFERENT OPINION AS TO THE ALLOW ABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT, ON THE SAME. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF MISS MRIDULA VS. A CIT IN ITA NO.305/CHD/2007, DATED 31.3.2006, WHEREBY IN THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE 7 ACT IS ALLOWED ON THE INCOME SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. 8. THE LEARNED D.R., WHILE RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SUBMITTED T HAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS CORROBORATED BY THE ORDER SHEET DATED 2.11.2011 AND 23.11.2011 AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. A COPY OF ORDER SHEET WAS FILED BEFORE US. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE A NY ENQUIRY REGARDING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF T HE ACT AS WAS NECESSITATED FROM THE FACT THAT A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE AND AN ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS SURRENDERED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SIMPLY ASKE D THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE CALCULATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 80IB OF THE ACT REGARDING THE SURRENDERED INCOME, T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS WELL WITHIN HIS POWER TO CONFER JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT. THE LEARNED D.R. PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS : (I) MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) (II) GEE VEE ENTERPRISES VS. ADDL.CIT 99 ITR 375 (DEL) (III) CIT VS.RAJA INDUSTRIES (2011) 15 TAXMANN.COM 40 (P&H) (IV) TUDOR KNITTING WORKS (P) LTD. VS. CIT 8 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.80,50,000/- WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AT T HE TIME OF SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT CARRIE D OUT IN ITS PREMISES. IN THE INITIAL SURRENDER LETTER I T WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.80,50 ,000/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK OF KNITTED CLOTH MANUFACTURED AND PROCESSED. THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED THIS INCOME OF RS.80,50,000/- UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT, WHILE FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME. EVEN AFTER THE ASSESSMENT, ON A QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THE SURRENDER WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT TO THE ASSE SSEE ON THE SAID SURRENDERED INCOME, OBVIOUSLY, CONSIDERING THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I T IS QUITE APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SEIZE D OF THE MATTER, CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE SAID ISSUE, WAS GOING ON, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE, ALL ALON G, HAD BEEN TREATING THE SURRENDERED INCOME AS ITS BUSINES S INCOME AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS QUITE SATISFIE D WITH THIS VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE. 9 10. AS REGARDS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, IT IS A TRITE LAW BY NOW THAT FOR REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE A CT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS TO BE ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. BOTH T HE CONDITIONS ARE TO BE SATISFIED SIMULTANEOUSLY. FOR AN ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS, THERE MAY BE TWO SITUATIONS, ONE WHERE NO ENQUIRY AT ALL HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE OTHER WHEREBY AS PER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXS YARDSTICKS INADEQUATE ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE FIRST SITUATION, WHERE NO ENQUIRY IS CONDUCTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE, THE ORDER MAY BE CONSIDERED ERRONEOUS AND IF IT LEADS TO LOSS OF REV ENUE TO THE DEPARTMENT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MAY GET JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE SAME UNDER SECTION 263 O F THE ACT. IN THE OTHER SITUATION, WHERE NO PROPER ENQUI RY IS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS TAKEN A VIEW PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT SIT OVER THE JUDG MENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO THE EXTENT OF ENQUIR IES TO BE CONDUCTED AND ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS. HOWEVER INADEQUATE AN ENQUIRY MAY BE, THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT IMPOSE HIS VIEW OVER THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, IN CASE ON SOME ENQUIRY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKES A VIEW WHICH I S CONTRARY TO ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING INFORCE, THE N THE ORDER CAN BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS. 10 11. NOW, WE WILL ANALYZE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE TO THE LAW AS DESCRIBED HEREINABOVE. THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT A CASE OF NO ENQUIRY AT ALL. THE AS SESSING OFFICER, THOUGH, HAS NOT WRITTEN IN VERY CLEAR TERM S, IN HIS ORDER, THE REASON FOR HIS GETTING SATISFIED AS TO T HE SURRENDERED INCOME BEING BUSINESS INCOME, FROM THE RECORD, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT HE WAS AGREEABLE TO THE ASSESSEES STAND THROUGH OUT THAT THE SURRENDERED I NCOME IS ITS BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE, AT MOST, IT CA N BE A CASE OF INADEQUATE ENQUIRY, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED, CANNOT BE A REASON TO HOLD THE ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS. 12. NOW COMES THE QUESTION OF APPLYING THE RIGHT LAW. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS R ELIED ON A NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS, INCLUDING THAT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA TO T HE EFFECT THAT THE SURRENDERED INCOME CANNOT BE CONSID ERED AS BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. WE HAVE PERUSED THE JUDGM ENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL LEGGUARD WORKS VS. CIT, 288 ITR 18 (P&H) A ND HOME TEX VS. CIT (2011) 243 CTR 81. THE PROPOSITIO N LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THESE CASES ARE THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER A PARTICULAR SECTION IS PR OVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITION S PROVIDED UNDER THE SAID SECTION AND THERE CANNOT BE A PRESUMPTION THAT THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT SURRENDERED REPRESENT ANY INCOME WHICH FULFILLS ALL THESE CONDI TIONS. 11 THE DEDUCTION CAN BE CLAIMED ONLY ON SHOWING THE FA CTS WHICH MADE THE ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. 13. WE ARE DEALING WITH A CASE WHERE THE REVISIONA RY POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ARE BEING EXERCISED. THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BL E HIGH COURT AS TO THE ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS BEING SATISF IED BY THE ASSESSEE, HAS TO BE DECIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. IT WAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO, ON WHATEVER ENQUIRY HE MADE, WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE T O DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. NOW, UNDE R THE GARB OF ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT IMPOSE H IS OWN JUDGMENT OVER THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. E VEN THE HIGH COURT HAS NOT HELD THAT ANY SURRENDERED INCOME , IN ANY CASE, CANNOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 80IB OF THE ACT. IN THIS VIEW, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 5 TH JANUARY, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH FIT FOR PUBLICATION (H.L.KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 12