M/s Classic Enterprises, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 386/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8394 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 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.386/CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S CLASSIC ENTERPRISES, VS. THE D.C.I.T., # 17, SECTOR 10-A, WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH PAN: AAEFC5510H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.03.2016 O R D E R PER H.L. KARWA, V.P. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, CHANDIGARH DATED 29.3.2011, PASSED UNDER SECTION 26 3 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM AND IS ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTI ON OF SHOPS AT KALKA. THE ASSESSEE SOLD SOME SHOPS DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THE 2 RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.8,099 /-, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHILE VERIFYING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT RECORDS, ACCOUNTS AND VARIOUS D ETAILS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.12.2008 PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E ACT WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MAT TER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ISSUED A SHOW C AUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE . SUBSEQUENTLY, DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, MAN Y OTHER POINTS CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WHICH ALSO PRIMA-FACIE INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THESE POINTS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSES SEE. THE MAIN POINTS RAISED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ARE AS UNDER : I) THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT OF PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS AND NET PROFIT/TURNOVER DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ONLY AT 0.12%, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS EXTREMELY LOW FOR A PERSON ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTERS AD BUILDERS. 3 II) THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED A TOTAL CONSTRUCTION OF RS.82,63,267/-. HOWEVER, IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.68 LACS ONLY. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, IF THE BOOKS ARE MAINTAINED ON THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THEN THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION OF RS.82,63,267/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT EITHER IN SALE OR IN CLOSING STOCK. THERE WAS NO CLOSING STOCK IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND INSTE AD OF SHOWING CLOSING STOCK IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE AMOUNT IN THE BALANCE SHEET. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPRESSED THE PROFIT TO THAT EXTENT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL OF THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT SOME OF THE SHOPS WERE SOLD I N THE YEAR IN QUESTION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBVIOUSLY HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THERE WERE SOME OTHER SHOPS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED BUT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SOLD AND VALUE OF THESE SHOPS WERE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN TO THE PROFIT & LOS S 4 ACCOUNT IN CLOSING STOCK. NO CLOSING STOCK WAS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. III) THE DETAILS OF SALE OF RS.68 LACS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND REASONABLENESS OF SALE CONSIDERATION HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS A PART OF THE SALE WAS TO PERS ONS WHICH WERE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. WHEN ABOVE POINTS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS REPLY ON DIFFE RENT POINTS VIDE LETTER DATED 29.3.2011. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TOOK THE VIEW T HAT THE SAME WAS VAGUE AND NOT CONVINCING. ACCORDING T O HIM, IN ITS REPLY THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT NEIT HER THE FIRM NOR ITS PARTNERS WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS. HOWEVER, IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD WRITTEN THAT IT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE STATED IN ITS REPLY THAT EIGHT SHOPS WERE CONSTRUCTED ON ONE PLOT OF LAND BEARING KHASRA NO.1 3 AND OTHER PLOT BEARING KHASRA NOS.14 AND 15, WHERE IT W AS PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT THE BANQUET HALL AND THIS WOR K COULD NOT BE COMPLETED DUE TO FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS . ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN 5 REPLY, THE FIRM HAS ITSELF MENTIONED THAT THE MAIN PARTNER, MR.ASHOK BANSAL WAS CONSTRUCTING A HOTEL IN PINJORE AND IN FACT, A HOTEL CLASSIC RESIDENCY WAS CONSTRUCTED IN PINJORE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX F URTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN ITS REPLY, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS WAS NOT REFLECTE D IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. AT THE SAME TIME, THE A SSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN THE PLEA THAT IF NEW PROFIT & LOSS A CCOUNT IS PREPARED ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, THE NET PROFIT WOULD BE THE SAME. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FURTHER NOTED THAT IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTION ED THAT THERE WERE SOME SHOPS CONSTRUCTED WHICH WERE N OT SOLD. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER ASKED T HE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THESE UNSOLD SHOPS ARE NOT IN A CLOSING STOCK AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS ADMITTED THA T THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN PREPARED AS PER THE STANDARD ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES. ACCORDING TO THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASSESSING OFFICER N EVER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCO UNT AS PER STANDARD ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONE OUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS TO THE REVENUE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CATEGORICALLY S TATED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION MADE IN THE 6 FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE PRO FIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. NO CLOSING STOCK OF SALE OF SHOPS OR CONSTRUCTION IN HANDS WAS SHOWN, WHICH WAS ALSO REQ UIRED TO BE DONE AS PER PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD A ND ALSO AS PER MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AS THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT OF BUILDERS/PROMO TERS. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ALSO TOOK T HE VIEW THAT THE NET PROFIT AT 0.12% SHOWN BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS EXTREMELY LOW IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDER OR PRO MOTER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT I S NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST S OF THE REVENUE. HE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO RE- FRAME THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 5. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DATED 29.3.2011 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE GROUNDS TAKEN B Y THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ARE WRONG AND 7 INCORRECT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREP ARED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IN ACCORDAN CE WITH STANDARD ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AS FRAMED BY TH E INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA, A STAT UTORY BODY INCORPORATED UNDER THE CENTRAL ACT. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED ITS ACCO UNTS ON PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD AS PER MERCANTIL E SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY DEBITED A SUM O F RS.40,34,407/- OUT OF RS.82,63,267/- TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE QUESTION OF SHOWING THE REST OF THE CONSTRUCTION VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS NOT CORRECT TO ARRIVE AT THE PROFIT AND LOSS OF THE SALES EFFECTED DURING THE YEAR. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS WRONGLY ALLEGED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED THE PROFIT TO THE EXTENT OF CLOSING STOCK. ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS ALLEGATION IS WITHOU T ANY BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED EIGHT SHOPS ON LY AND NO OTHER SHOPS WERE CONSTRUCTED. THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED THE RE-CONSTRUCTED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WITH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ALONGWITH LETTERS DATED 29.3.2011 AND 10.7.2009, WHEREIN TOTAL LAND AND BUI LDING RELATED TO (WORK-IN-PROGRESS) JOINTLY INVOLVED IN C ASE WERE SUBMITTED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PO INTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE 8 ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION VARIOUS REPLIES, MATERIAL ON REC ORD AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS UNWARRANTED AND UNCA LLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF TH E ACT, MAY BE QUASHED. 7. SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, THE LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. T HE LEARNED D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE REASONS FOR SETTI NG ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WA S THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO CARRY OUT ANY ENQUIRY/PROPER ENQUIRY ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN HIS ORDER DA TED 22.12.2008. ACCORDINGLY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX HAS HELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO BE NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS P LACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : I) BASSERA REALTORS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (2015) 55 TAXMANN.COM 327 (CHANDIGARH- (TRIB.) II) CIT VS. RAJA INDUSTRIES (2011) 15 TAXMANN.COM 40 (PUNJ & HAR.) 9 III) CIT VS. RAJESH MAHAJAN (2011) 16 TAXMANN.COM 85 (PUNJ & HAR.) IV) TUDOR KNITTING WORKS (P.) LTD. VS. CIT (2014) 46 TAXMANN.COM 390 (PUNJ & HAR.) V) CIT VS. VARANASI KHANTA RAO (2015) 59 TAXMANN.COM 175 (ANDHRA PRADESH) VI) SHUBH LAKSHMI VANIJYA (P) LTD. & OTHERS VS. CI T (2015)( 124 DTR (KOL)(TRIB) 249. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SHREE MANJUNATHESWARE PACKING PRODUCTS & CAMPHOR WORKS (1988) 231 ITR 53 LAID DOWN THE RATIO THAT THE REVI SIONAL POWER CONFERRED ON THE CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF TH E ACT IS OF WIDE AMPLITUDE. IT ENABLES THE CIT TO CALL FO R AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT. IT EMPOWERS THE CIT TO MAKE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE SUCH ENQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO FIND OUT IF ANY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT I S PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IN TH E INSTANT CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CONS TRUCTION MADE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 HAS NOT BEEN REF LECTED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. NO CLOSING STOCK OF SALE OF SHOPS OR CONSTRUCTION IN HAND WAS SHOWN, WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE DONE AS PER PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD AND ALSO AS PER MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT ING AS THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT OF 10 BUILDERS/PROMOTERS, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMS ELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THERE WERE SOME SHOPS CONSTRUCTED , WHICH WERE NOT SOLD INTEREST HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS CORRECT LY OBSERVED THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO ASK THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THESE UNSOLD SHOPS AR E NOT SHOWN IN THE CLOSING STOCK, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE A SSESSEE ITSELF ADMITTED THAT THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WERE NOT PREPARED AS PER STANDARD ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES. FU RTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO S UBMIT PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS PER STANDARD ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO MAKE ENQUIRIES WHICH ARE CALLED FOR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS A MERIT IN THE CONT ENTION OF THE LEARNED D.R. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAI LED TO CARRY OUT ANY ENQUIRY/PROPER ENQUIRY ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN HIS O RDER AND, THEREFORE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO BE NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW T HAT THE COMMISSIONER MAY CONSIDER THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO BE ERRONEOUS NOT ONLY IF IT CONTAINS SOM E APPARENT ERROR OF REASONING OR OF LAW OR OF FACT O N THE FACE OF IT BUT ALSO BECAUSE IT IS A STEREOTYPED ORD ER WHICH SIMPLY ACCEPTS WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN HIS RETURN AND FAILS TO MAKE ENQUIRIES WHICH ARE CALLED FOR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE [SEE RAM PYARI DEVI SARAO GI VS. 11 CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) AND TARA DEVI AGGARWAL VS . CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)]. 9. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME WITHOUT VERIFYING OR REFERRING TO ANY MATERIAL AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING THE POWER CONFERRED ON HIM UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJESH MAHAJAN (SUPRA) HELD TH AT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MECHANICALLY ACCEP TED THE RETURNED INCOME WITHOUT SCRUTINIZING OR REFERRI NG TO ANY MATERIAL EXAMINED BY HIM, REVISION UNDER SECTIO N 263 OF THE ACT WOULD BE JUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED D.R. REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VARANASI KHANTARAO (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ONCE THE COMMISSIONER HAS GOT THE P OWER TO POINT OUT ERRORS WHICH HAVE EFFECT ON REVENUE, T HE TRIBUNAL CANNOT SIT AS AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON SU CH ORDER OF COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX HAS CORRECTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 263 OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE AND, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH HIS ORDER IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, 12 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. ACCOR DINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 8 TH MARCH, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH