DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), Nagpur V. M/S MANSA AGRO FOOD PROCESSING PVT. LTD., Nagpur

ITA 373/NAG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1287 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A R NINAWE
• Assessee Lawyers: SACHIN LUTHRA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Business income; Search and seizure; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 153A; 32; 132; 139

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.. I.T.A. NO.3 7 3/NAG/2016. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 08 - 09 . DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, M/S MANSA AGRO FOOD CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), NAGPUR. VS. PROCESSING PVT. LTD., NAGPUR. PAN AABCM 6900C. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.R. NINAWE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SACHIN LUTHRA. DATE OF HEARING : 24 - 11 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 TH DEC., 2016 O R D E R. PER SHAMIM YAHYA , A.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - 3, NAGPUR DATED 05 - 04 - 2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08 - 09 1. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LEARNED CIT(A ) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE AND ACTION U/S 153A OF THE I . T . ACT WAS BAD IN LAW , EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESS I NG OFFICER HAD RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FRO M VARIOUS PREMISES, BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS THE ONLY PRE - CONDITIO N F OR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961? 2. O N T H E FACTS A ND IN TH E C I RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW , THE LEA R NED CIT(A) H A S ERRED I N UPH O L D I N G THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT W HEREAS TH E DE L H I H I G H COURT I N THE CASE OF C I T VS. ANIL KUMAR BHAT I A REPORTED I N 352 ITR 49 3 A N D TH E KAR N ATAKA HIGH COURT COURT IN THE CASE OF CANARA HOUSING DEVE L O PM E NT CO . V S . D C I T , HAVE AFFIRMED THE SCOPE OF THE ASSESS I NG OFFICER TO ASSESS TH E TOT A L I NC O M E I N TH E PR OCEED I NGS U/S . 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . 3. O N TH E F A CT S A N D C I R C UM S T ANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LEARNED C I T(A) FAILED TO APP R EC I ATE T H AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ASSESS OR RE - ASSESS THE TOTAL 2 I NCOME OF 6 ASSESSMENT YEARS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A( 1)(B) OF THE I . T . AC T . 4 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE FACTS OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT(C) - III VS . KABUL CHAWLA (ITA NO . ?07/2014) IS DIFFERENT AS IT IS REGARDING ASSESSMENTS WHERE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS UN EARTHED DURING THE SEARC H . 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LEARNED C I T ( A ) ER R ED IN TREATING MERE PROCESSING OF RETURN U/S . 143(1) OF THE LT . ACT , 1961 , AS ' COMP L ETED ASSESSMENT ' BY IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS . ZUARI ESTATE DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CO . LTD . (CA 6758 OF 2004 ) AND C I T VS . RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD . 291 ITR 500 (2007). 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND I N LAW , THE LEARNED CIT ( A ) , BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON ' BLE ITAT, NAGPUR, IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI SHAKTIKUMAR SANCHETI IN ITA NO.203/NAG/2014 DATED 5 . 2 . 2016 , HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE HON ' BLE ITAT , PUNE BENCH , HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF KRANTI REALTORS PVT LTD. (ITA NO. 2021 TO 2023/PN/2013 DATED 10 . 11.2015) , WHEN RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S . 143(1) AND NO ASSESSMENT WAS MADE , ADDITIONS MAYOR MAY NOT BE BASED ON INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH 7. ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS . 1 , 56 , 775 / - BY TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME , WITHOUT GOING I NTO THE MER I TS OF THE CASE . 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS . 25 , 03 , 670 / - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND , WITHOUT GOING I NTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 9. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS . 29 , 04 , 332/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS , WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MER I TS OF THE CASE . 10. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.1,53,170/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED PROFIT, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 2. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) ON 30 - 09 - 20 08 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,360 / - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT ON 23 - 12 - 2009 . SUBSEQUENTLY P URSUANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132, NOTICE U/S 153A WAS I SSUED ON 03 - 04 - 2012. IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED THEREAFTER, THE AO MADE 3 THE ADDITION S BASED UPON THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE SHEET FILED. TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS AT RS.57,17,950/ - . NO ADDITION WAS BASED ON ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CHALLENGING THAT THE JURISDICTION U/S 153A WAS VITIATED AND THE ADDITION WAS NO T BEING BASED UPON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER : IN THE JUDGMENT S IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (BOMBAY HIGH C OURT) (APPEAL NO. 523 OF 2013) & CIT VS. MURLI AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. (NAGPUR BENCH OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT) (APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2009), RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE AO CANNOT MAKE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER OR THE ADDITIONS THEREIN WHICH ARE NOT BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND OR SEIZED DURING SEARCH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BECOME FINAL. AN EXCEPTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN WHICH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BECOME FINAL OR FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN ABATED. 14. T HE I SSUE WAS FIRST DECIDED BY HON SPE C IA L BENCH OF H O N' BL E MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF ALCARG O GLOBAL LOGISTIC S LTD . THE SPECIAL BENCH HAD TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE WH ETHER AN ASSESSMENT U/S153A ENCOMPASSED AD D ITI O NS NO T B ASE D O N ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. THE SPECIAL BENCH HELD AS UNDER: > ' ( I ) I N AS SESS MENTS T HAT ARE AB ATE D , THE AO RET A IN S THE O RI G INAL JUR I SDIC TI O N AS WELL A S T H E JU R ISDICT I ON CON FE RR ED ON H IM BY S. 153A F O R WH I CH ASSESSMENTS SHAL L BE M A DE F O R E A CH O F T H E 6 ASSES SM E N T Y EARS SEPA RATELY : (II) I N O T H ER CA SES, IN A D DITI O N T O T H E I NCO ME T H A T HAS ALREADY B EEN ASSESSED, T H E ASSESSMENT U L S 1 53 A W ILL B E MAD E ON TH E B AS I S O F I NC RIMINATIN G M ATERIAL I . E . ( A ) THE 4 BOO K S O F ACC O UNT S AND O T H ER DOCUMENTS F O UND I N TH E CO URSE O F O RI G I N AL ASSESS M ENT AND (B ) UN DI SC L O SED I NCO ME O R PR OP ERTY DIS C L O SED IN THE CO URSE O F SEAR C H.' 15 . IN CO NTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CO R PORATION (NH A VA SHEVA ) L T D . ( SUP R A ) , THE HON ' BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT REFERRE D T O THE DECIS I ONS O F HON ' BLE NAGPUR B E NCH OF B O MBA Y H I G H COURT IN THE CASE OF MURLI AGRO P R O DUCTS LTD . AND O F SPE C IA L BE NCH OF ITAT , MUMBAI I N THE CASE OF AL L C AR GO GLOBAL L O GISTICS LTD . THE H O N' B LE HIGH COURT U PHELD THE DEC I SION OF SPEC IA L B E NCH , ITAT , MUMBA I DEL IVERED IN THE CASE OF A LL C A RGO GL O BAL LOGISTI C S L T D . 16 . SI MILA R VLEW WA S TAKEN IN THE C A SE OF CIT (CENTRAL) - III VS. KABUL CHAWLA ITA NO . 7 0 7 /20 14 DECI DED BY D E L HI HIG H CO URT ON 28 . 0 8 . 2 0 15 . 17 . F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISCUSSION IN ASSESSEES CASE, THE TIME FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS OVER AS ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 153A. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN U/S. 139(1) ON 30.11.2010. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED ON 29 . 0 8 . 201 1 . THE N O TICE U/ S 153A WAS ISSUED BY T H E A O T O T H E AS SESSEE O N 13 . 06 . 2012 . THE H O N ITAT, NAGPUR DECIDE D O N THE I S SUE IN THE CASE O F ACIT VS L A TE SHRI SHAN T I KUMA R SANCHETI IN ITA N O . 203/NAG /20 14 IN ITS JUDG M E NT DATED 0 5. 02 . 2 016 . THE HON ' BLE ITAT, N AGPUR HELD AS UN DER : ' W E H AVE PERUSE D T H E IM PU G N E D ASSESS M E NT O R D ER A ND NOTICE D T H AT T HE R E WAS N O MENT I ON O F A NY I N C RIMI N ATING M A T ERI A L ON T H E BASIS O F WHI CH T HE I MPUG N E D A DD I TI ON WA S MA D E . FURTHER IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACTUA L POS I TION THAT THE RETURN U/S. 139 WAS FILED ON 31.10.2005 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S . 143(1) ON04.05.2006. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE THAT A NOTICE U/S. 153A WAS ISSUED WITHIN 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN U/S. 139, BECAUSE THE NOTICE U/S . 153A WAS ISSUED ON SO '' OF MAY, 2008 AND IN COMPLIANCE A RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DECLARING THE SAME INCOME AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY DECLARED. FAC T S O F THE CASE HAVE FURTHER REVEALED THAT THE AS SESSM ENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS N O T THE YEAR WHI CH ABATED UNDER ANY O F THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. RE V ENUE H A S NO T D EMO N STRATED THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATI ON I . E . ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 00 5 - 06 AN Y P R OCEED I NG S W ERE PENDING O R THE PROCEEDINGS O F THE ASSESSMEN T YE AR W ERE Y ET T O BE FINALIZED . I N THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITI O N WE HAVE C AREF U LL Y PERUSED THE ORDER O F H ON ' B LE JURISDIC TI ON AL H IGH CO URT PR O N O UNCED I N T H E C ASE O F C I T VS. C ONTINEN TA L WA R E H OU SING CO RP O RATI ON 1 20 D TR 89 (BOM . ) WH ERE IN T H E H ON ' B LE C O URT HAS HELD THAT IN RESPE C T OF NON ABATE D ASSESSMENTS THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE MADE ON T HE BA SIS O F B OO KS O F ACCOUNTS OR OTHER 5 DOCUMENT N O T PRODUCED IN THE C O URSE O F O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT BUT F OUND IN THE COU RS E O F SEAR CH O R UNDISCLOSED INC O ME DISC OV ERE D I N THE COU RSE O F S E ARC H . THE CO URT HAS FURTHER CLARIFIE D T HAT T H E S CO PE O F THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U /S . 15 3 A IS TO ASSESS OR REASSESS PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE DATE O F CONDU CTING T H E SEAR C H U / S. 132 O R MAKING REQUISITI ON U / S . 132 A T H AT H AS ABATED A N D NO T THE ASSESSMENTS / R E ASSESSME N TS ALREAD Y FI N ALIZ ED F O R THO SE ASSESSM E N T Y EARS C OV ERED U / S. 153A . THIS DE C ISI O N BEIN G A N ORD ER O F JURISDICTI O NAL HIGH COURT, HENCE BINDING UPON US . AS FAR AS THE DE C ISIONS CI TED FR O M THE SIDE O F THE REVENUE ARE CO N C ER N E D , THE LEGAL PR O POSITION IS T H E SAME AS HELD I N THE C ASE O F ALL C ARG O GLOBAL L O GISTICS LT D . V S. DC I T 23 TA X MANN. C O M 1 03 (MUM B AI (S . B.) THA T T H E S CO PE O F A S SESSM E N T U / S. 153A IS CONFINED TO THE INCRI M INATING MATERIA L O R BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WH ICH W ERE NO T PR O DUCED IN THE C O URSE OF ORIGINAL AS SESSME N T A ND T H AT THE ASSESSMENT PR OC EEDINGS ARE NOT F IN ALIZED. E V E N I N THE CASE O F FILATE X INDIA LTD. 49 T A XM ANN . C O M 4 6 5 (DEL . ) AND OBSER V ATI ON WAS MADE THAT THE ADDITION U/S 153A IS REQUIRED TO BE RESTRICTED TO T H E INC RI M I NA TI NG MA TERIAL F OU ND DURING THE COU RSE O F S EAR CH . ' ( E M PH ASI S SUPP LI E D). IN TH E ABOVE CITED CASE , THE HON' BLE ITAT, NAGPUR DECIDED I N ASSESSEE'S FAVOUR FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON ' B L E JURISDICTI O NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUS I NG CORPORATION. THE ASSESSMENT WAS TREATED AS C O MPLETED SINCE NOTICE U/S . 153A WAS I S SUED BEYOND 12 M O NTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S. 139. T H E DATE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143 ( 2) HAD EXPIRE D AND THEREFORE , THE ASSESSMENT WAS TREATED AS COMPLETED AS ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 153A . 18. VARIO U S TRIBUNALS AND HIGH COURTS HAVE HE L D THAT THE A S S ES SMENTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY CONCLUDED, WITHOUT AN Y I N C R IMINATING MATERIAL BEING FOUND DURING THE SEARCH, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AO IN ASSESSMENTS P R O CEE DI NGS U / S 153A DO NO T SURVIVE AND THEREFORE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. IN CASE WHERE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED DETERMINING ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME AND SUCH ORDERS SUBSISTING AT THE TIME WHEN THE SEARCH OR THE REQUISITION IS MADE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY ABATEMENT SINCE NO PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING. THE AO HAS STATED AS UNDER IN HIS REPORT DATED 1 0 . 12 . 20 15 F O R THE AGRAWA1 GROUP OF CASES : ' AS R EGARDS THE C A SES IN WHICH THE A S SES S MEN TS WE R E A B A TED A S A RESULT O F SEARCH U/S 1 32 A N D NO TI CE U I S 153A O R 153C , IT IS T O INF O RM THAT AS PE R TH E RECORDS , E X C E P T I N THE C ASE 6 OF M I S SH REE AGARWAL FINANCE IND I A PV T. LTD . F O R THE A . Y . 2 009 - 1 0 , THER E IS N O CASE IN WH I C H A SSESSME N T WA S S O A BATED . IT IS ALSO SUBM IT T E D THAT I N F O LL OW I NG CA S E S T HE A S S E S SM E N TS WERE D O NE U/S 14 3 ( 3 ) O F T H E A C T , P R I O R T O T HE S E A RCH - 1. M I S S H R E E A G RAWAL CO AL INDIA P VT . LTD. A. Y. 2 0 05 - 0 6 , 2006 - 0 7 , 2 0 07 - 08 & 2008 - 0 9 . 2. SH RI D A RPAN DHA R A M P AL AGRAWAL : A . Y. 2008 - 09 '. FROM THE AO'S REPORT, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE WAS NO ASSESSMENT PENDING IN THIS CASE AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT ABATED . THE TIME FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAD EXPIRED AS ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 153A AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT HAD BECOME FINAL IN VIEW OF LTAT NAGPUR DECISION REFERRED ABOVE IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI SHAKTIKUMAR SANCHETI. ' - 19 . C ON SID ERIN G THE DECISIONS DISCUSSED AB O VE AND REL YING UP O N T H E D ECIS I ON OF HON ' B1E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CONTINENTAL WAREH O USING ( B O MBAY HIGH COURT) (APPEAL NO. 523 OF 2013) & C IT VS MURLI AGRO PRODUCTS LTD . ( NAGPUR BENCH O F B O MBAY H I GH C O URT ) . ( APPEAL NO . 36 OF 2 00 9 ) AND HON'B LE I T A T D ECISI O N IN THE C ASE OF LATE SHRI SHA KTIK UM AR SANCH E T I, THE 'ADDITIONAL GROUND ' RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE ADDITION IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY MATERIAL FOUND IN SEARCH. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARLIER FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAD CLEARLY GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE CASE LAWS FROM HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WARE HOUSING (SUPRA) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. IN THE SAID CASE REPORTED IN 120 DTR 89 THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT IN RESPECT OF NON ABATED ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS NOT PRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT BUT FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR UN DISCLOSED 7 INCOME DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 6. WE FURTHER FIND THAT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GURINDER SINGH BAWA IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1839 OF 2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 05 - 10 - 2015 IN A CASE WHERE RETURN OF INCOME F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) HAS ALSO UPHELD THE DECISION OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (SUPRA). 7. SINCE THE ABOVE IS A DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 8. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DIS MISSED THE APPEAL ON INVALID JURISDICTION, ADJUDICATION ON MERITS OF ISSUES RAISED IS ONLY OF ACADEMIC INTEREST. HENCE WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE ADDITION ON MERITS 9 . IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF DEC., 2016. SD/ - SD/ - (RAM LAL NEGI) ( SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACOUNTANT MEMBER. NAGPUR, DATED: 19 TH DEC. , 2016. COPY FORWARDED TO : 8 1. M/S MANSA AGRO FOOD PROCESSING PVT. LTD. 216, DEVIKRIPA SOCIETY, WARDHAMAN NAGAR, NAGPUR - 440008. 2. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), NAGPUR. 3. C.I.T. - (CENTAL), NAGPUR. 4. CIT(APPEALS), - 3, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WAKODE. 9