ACIT, Sambalpur V. M/s Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd, Sambalpur

ITA 396/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5367 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUNAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S S PODDARN KEDIA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Audit objection; Additional depreciation; Tangible material; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Revised return; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings; Capital expenditure
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 147; 148; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JM ./ ITA NO. 39 6 / CTK /20 1 3 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 8 - 20 0 9 ) ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), SA MBALPUR VS. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD., JAGRITI VIHAR, BURLA, SAMBALPUR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABC M 5188 P ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /REVENUE BY : SHRI KUNAL SINGH, CITDR /AS SESSEE BY : SHR I S.S.PODDAR/N.KEDIA , AR / DATE OF HEARING : 0 4 / 10 /201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09 / 10 /201 7 / O R D E R PER SHRI PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JM : TH E REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE O RDER OF CIT(A), CUTTACK , IN APPEAL NO. 040 3 /201 2 - 1 3 , DATED 23.05.201 3 , PASSED U/S. 147/ 143(3)/250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 8 - 200 9 , WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. WHETHER THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY WAS JUSTIFIED IN RELYING ON WRIT CASES IGNORING THE FACT THAT SPECIFIC FINDINGS IN WRIT - PETITIONS CAN NOT BE STRAIGHTAWAY APPLIED TO OTHER CASES. 2. WHETHER THE LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT THERE IS CHANGE IN OPINION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY / INADMISSIBILITY OF EXPENDITURE WHILE PROCEEDING U/S.147 OF THE 1.T. ACT,1961 AS COMPARED TO HIS FINDINGS IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. WHETHER THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS JUSTIFIED TO DE LETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.696.10 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS 'PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES', TOTALLY IGNORING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WHETHER THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS JUSTIFIED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.631.34 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS `UNPAID STATUTORY LIABILITY' UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE I.T. ACT,1961, TOTALLY IGNORING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 39 6 /CTK/201 3 2 5. WHETHER THE LD. APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS JUSTIFIED TO DELETE THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS.440.05 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS `EXPENDITURE DISALLOWABLE' UNDER SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE I.T. ACT,1961, TOTALLY IGNORING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. ANY OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT MAY BE TAKEN UP DURING T HE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MINING, EXTRACTION OF COAL AND SALE THEREOF AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 20 0 8 - 20 0 9 ON 16.10.2008 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 239418.18 LACS AND ALSO FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.05.2009 DISCLOSING TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.238828.18 LAKHS AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.297836.50 LAKHS. THE AO ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AND BECAUSE OF THE WRONG CLAIM OF EXPENSES THERE IS AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT AND IN COMPLIANCE LD. AR APPEARED AND FIL ED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO TO TREAT THE RETURN FILED ORIGINALLY AS DUE COMPLIANCE. 3. THE AO CONSIDER ING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, DETAILED DOCUMENTS FILED AND THE ISSUE S UNDER DISPUTE , MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR OTHER EXPENSES BASED ON PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT RS.1352.96 LAKHS, SIMILARLY MADE DISALLOWANCE O F PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AT RS. 696.10 LAKHS AND FURTHER BASED ON THE TAX AUDIT REPORT THE AO FOUND THAT THE STATUTORY LIABILITY AMOUNT WAS NOT PAID BE FORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND DISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.631.34 LAKHS AND SIMILARLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON ITA NO. 39 6 /CTK/201 3 3 IICM CHARGES OF RS.440.05 LAK HS PAID TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY AND WAS DISALLOWED AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 243891.31 LAKHS AND PASSED THE ORDER U/S.147/143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 22.02.2013. 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A) . IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND ARGUED THE GROUNDS AN D REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND EMPHASIZED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS DEVOID OF MERITS. LD. CIT(A) DEALT ON THE EACH DISPUTED ISSUE AND REL IED ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT AS T HE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS BASED ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS AND CHANGE OF OPINION. 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . BEFORE US, LD. D R EMPHASIZED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDING WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF MINING ACTIVITIES AS IT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF MANUFACTURING AND PRAYED THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RE LYING THE DECISION AND ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO AUDIT OBJECTION THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS INITIATED AND ALSO FILED COPY OF THE NOTE - SHEET IN RESPECT OF REASONS FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENT. THE LD. DR RELIED O N DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DALMIA PVT. LTD., WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.6205 OF 2010, DATED 26.09.2011, AT PARA 14 WHICH READS AS UNDER : - ITA NO. 39 6 /CTK/201 3 4 14. THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT ONE OF CHANGE OF OPINION AS URGED BY THE PETITIONER. QUESTION O F CHANGE OF OPINION ARISES WHEN AN ASSESSING OFFICER FORMS AN OPINION AND DECIDES NOT TO MAKE AN ADDITION AND HOLDS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASKED SPECIFIC AND POINTED QUERIES WITH REGARD TO THE SUNDRY CRE DITORS OF RS. 1,66,37,402/ - ASKED FOR CONFIRMATIONS, NAMES, ADDRESSES AND DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED. AN ADDITION OF RS.19,86,551/ - WAS MADE FOR FAILURE TO FURNISH CONFIRMATION AND EXPLAIN WHAT SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE CREDITORS. THERE IS NO DISCUSS ION, GROUND OR REASON WHY ADDITION OF RS.32,97,507/ - WAS NOT MADE INSPITE OF THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CONFORMATION AND DETAILS. IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS REGARD TO REFER TO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, WHICH READS: - EXPLANA TION 1. PRODUCTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ACCOUNT BOOKS OR OTHER EVIDENCE FROM WHICH MATERIAL EVIDENCE COULD WITH DUE DILIGENCE HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL NOT NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO DISCLOSURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOREG OING PROVISO. AND ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF P.V.S.BEEDIES (P) LTD. [1999] 103 TAXMAN 294 (SC) C ONTRA, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ALONG WITH JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND SUBMITTED THE COPIE S OF TAX AUDIT REPORT AND ANNUAL REPORT WHERE THE DISPUTED ISSUE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF REVENUES APPEAL. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE MAIN CRUX OF THE DISPUTED ISSUE REVOLVES AROUN D THE QUASHING OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY CIT(A) AS THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE BASED ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS AND CHANGE OF OPINION AND NO NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF ISSUING OF NOTICE. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE INITIATED ON THE AUDIT OBJECTIONS AND RELIED ON THE DECISION HONBLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD., [2017] 79 TAXMANN.COM 267 (SC) AND ALSO ITA NO. 39 6 /CTK/201 3 5 119 ITR 996. FURTHER LD. DR SUPPORTED HIS SUBMISSION WITH COPY OF NOTE - SHEETS WITH RESPECT TO REASONS FOR REOPENING. WHEREAS LD. AR CONTRADICTED THE REASONS THAT THE DISPUTED ISSUES WERE ALREADY DEALT BY THE AO IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT . T HE LD. AR ON THE FIRST DISPUTED ISSUE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES ADJUSTMENT DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE SCHEDULE 11 & 13 OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHERE THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN REFLECTED. SIMILARLY IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF STATUTORY LIABILITIES U/S.43B OF THE ACT, LD. AR SUPPORTED HIS ARGUMENTS WITH ANNEXURES - 7 & 7A OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT STATUTORY DUES BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT AND IN RESPECT OF NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS OF IICM CHARGES, ,LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT TH E AMOUNT WAS PAID TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY I.E. COAL INDIA LTD. AND THEY HAVE DISCLOSED THIS INCOME IN THEIR RETURNS AND SINCE THEY HAVE PAID THE TAXES PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. W E FOUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF REASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT IS NOT SUBSTITUTE TO ASSESSMENT AND THE AO HAS TO RESTRICT THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT OF REASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED ISSUE. WE FOUND THAT IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT, THE AO OBSERVED AT PAGE 3 WHICH READS AS UNDER : - WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) DT.31.12.20 10, THE PROVISION ON THE ABOVE REFERRED TH REE HEADS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT AND DISALLOWED RS.989.03 LAKHS AND ADDED BACK TO THE TO T AL INCOME. BUT, LEFT BEHIND THE BALANCE PROVISION OF RS.1352.96 L AKHS FOR DUE CONSIDERATION. WE AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AUDIT OBJECTIONS AND THE TAX AUDIT REPORT SUPPORTING THE PAYMENT OF THE STATUTORY LIABILITY A S DEMONSTRATED BY THE LD. AR , THE SAID MATERIAL AND FACTS WERE AVAILABLE ITA NO. 39 6 /CTK/201 3 6 WITH THE AO AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND OPINION WAS E XPRESSED AS DISCUSSED IN ABOVE PARA, WE FOUND THE CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF DISPUTED ISSUE AND FINALLY FOUND THAT THE ORDER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT AND OBSERVED AT PARA 6 WHICH READS AS UNDER: - REASONS FOR THE DECISION 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE 'INCOME - TAX ASSESSMENT RECORD' OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE AY 200 8 - 0 9 . I FIND THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT - COMPANY WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) ON 18. 11 .2009. THEN THE AO HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) ON 31 .12. 20 10 MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES : SL.NO. NATURE OF ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT IN LAKH 1 PROSPECTING & BORING EXPENSES 403.68 2 DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE 49.32 3 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON ASSETS NOT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY 1. 01 4 D ECLAMATION OF LAND 858.94 5 EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2346.06 6 APEX OFFICE EXPENSES 4944.50 7 CONTRIBUTION TO REHABILITATION FUND 5018.03 8 DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT & MACHINERY 461.66 9 CLAIM OF IN TEREST 852.37 &590.00 10 DONATION & SUBSCRIPTION 5.25 1 1 EXPENDITURE (OTHERS) 244.78 12 OTHER EXPENSES 0.06 13 DETERIORATION OF STOCK AND REHANDLING CHARGES OF COAL 384.30 14 REDUCTION IN VALUE OF STORES DUE TO OBSOLESCENCE AND SHORTAGE OF STORES 130. 09 15 UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK 28439.65 16 CLAIM TOWARDS PROVISIONS, GRATUITY AND EXCESS VRS EXPENDITURES 13534.03 & 233.72 6.1 I ALSO FIND THAT THE AO AT PAGE - 2 OF HIS ABOVE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS MENTIONED THE FOLLOWING: 'IN RESPONSE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL NOTICES AND QUERY LETTERS SHRI JAYDAYAL AGRAWAL, FCA & A/RS OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND COMPLIED WITH THE QUERIES RAISED. COPIES OF ACCOUNTS, DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED AND EXPLANATION/CLARIFICATIONS ITA NO. 39 6 /CTK/201 3 7 WERE FILED BY A/RS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY THE DISCUSSION WITH THE A/RS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE FOLLOWING ISSUES ARE TAKEN UP FOR COMPLETION OF AS SESSMENT AS UNDER' 6.2 THE AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 31.12.2010 DETERMINING THE INCOME AT RS. 297836.50 LAKH. THEN HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 TO THE APPELLANT - COMPANY ON 17.02.2012 . 6.3 I REFER HERE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF M/S.B.C.NAYAK V. CIT [ WRIT PETITION (C) NO.797 / 2012]. THE ISSUE THEREIN WAS THAT THE AO HAD PASSED ORDER U/S.143(3), THEN RE - OPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE ALLEGATION OF NON - CONSIDERATION AND VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND 40A(3). THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 02.3.2012 HELD : 'NO DOUBT SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS VERY WIDE AND CONFERRED POWER UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE - ASSESS THE ASSESSMENT MADE PREVIOUSLY WHERE THERE IS ESCAPED ASSESS MENT AND SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR RE - ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, SECTION 147 DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN HIS OWN ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE BASIS OF 'REASON TO BELIEF' BY REVIEWING ITS OWN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND MERELY IN CHANGE OF OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IF THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 04.12.2003 IS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE OR HAS NOT BEEN MADE PROPERLY, POWER U/S.263 IS VESTED UPON THE COMMISSIONER FOR RE VISION OF THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BETTER INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACT SITUATION OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. H ENCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF RE - ASSESSMENT DATED 22.11.2011 UNDER ANNEXURE - 4 IS QUASHED. WRIT PETITION IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. IF THE REVENUE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 04.12.2008, IT IS OPEN FOR THE O.P.NO.1 - COMMISSIONER TO EXERCISE ITS POWER U/S.263 OF THE ACT.' THE LEARNED ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK HAS FOLLOWED THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO,WARD - 1,PARADEEP V. NILADRI CONSTRUCTION (ITA NO.538/CTK/2012 FOR THE AY 2006 - 07). 6.4 THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF BLB LTD. V. ACIT [W.P.(C) 6884/2010] IN ORDER DATED 01.12.2011 HELD THE FOLLOWING: '12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICEABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT. TH E REASONS RECORDED ABOVE DO NOT DISCLOSE OR STATE ITA NO. 39 6 /CTK/201 3 8 THAT THERE WAS FAILURE OR OMISSION TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. THERE IS NO INDICATION AND IT IS NOT ALLEGED THAT THERE WAS SOME MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHEN REASONS T O REOPEN WERE RECORDED, TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED OR HAD NOT DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. THE MATERIAL FACTS WERE ON RECORD AND HAD BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTUAL MATRIX ABOVE INDICATES THAT THE REVENUE VERILY BE LIEVES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DRAWN A WRONG LEGAL INFERENCE AND A CONCLUSION, WHICH IT IS SUBMITTED IS INCORRECT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN VALIDLY INITIATED AS THE CONDITION OF THE P ROVISO TO SECTION 147 IS NOT SATISFIED. 13. REVENUE HAD THE OPTION, BUT DID NOT TAKE RECOURSE TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, IN SPITE OF AUDIT OBJECTION. SUPERVISORY AND REVISIONARY POWER U/S.263 OF THE ACT IS AVAILABLE, IF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. AS ERRONEOUS ORDER CONTRARY TO LAW THAT HAS CAUSED PREJUDICED CAN BE CORRECT, WHEN JURISDICTION U/S.263 IS INVOKED. 14. IN VIEW OF THE SAID DISCUSSION, WE ALLOW AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTI ORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE U/S.148 DATED 01.02.2010 AND THE ORDER DATED 16.9.2010 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WRIT PETITION IS DI S POSED OF. NO COSTS.' 6.5 EXAMINED ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF THE AFORE - NOTED LEGAL PRINCIPLES, THE REASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO ON 22.02.2013 AS A RESULT OF NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED BY HIM ON 17.02.2012 IS QUASHED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS G IVEN A METICULOUS OBSERVATION S ON EACH DISPUTED ISSUE AND HAVING SATISFIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS HAS QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . ACCORDINGLY WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CT(A) AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF REVENUE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 09/10 / 201 7 . . SD/ - ( N. S. SAINI ) SD/ - ( PA V AN KUMAR GADALE ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 09/10 /201 7 . . / PKM , SE NIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITA NO. 39 6 /CTK/201 3 9 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE RESPONDENT - 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//