M/s Sanidhya, Surat V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

ITA 417/SRT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8885 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Audit objection; Rule of consistency; Question of law; Assessment record
• Section: 40(b); 80IB

Judgement Text

M/S.SANIDHYA VS. PCIT-1, SURAT /ITA NO.417/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y.: 2013-14 PAGE 1 OF 10 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . . ./ I.T.A.NO.417/SRT/2018 [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S.SANIDHYA, MAITRY, OPP.KANCHAN JANGA APT., BHATAR CHAR RASTA, BHATAR ROAD, SURAT. [PAN: ABAFS 6849 Q] VS. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT 1. APPELLANT /RESPONDENT [ /ASSESSEE BY: SHRI RASESH SHAH CA /REVENUE BY: SHRI PRASANJEET SINGH CIT - DR & SHRI PRASOON KABRA - SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING: 1 7 .0 5 .2019 /PRONOUNCEMENT ON: 1 7 .0 5 .2019 /O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, SURAT DATED 19.03.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON 26.09.2013 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.48,720/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.19,22,138/- U/S.80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS FINALIZED VIDE ORDER U/S0143(3) OF THE ACT DATED M/S.SANIDHYA VS. PCIT-1, SURAT /ITA NO.417/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y.: 2013-14 PAGE 2 OF 10 18.03.2016 BY ACCEPTING THE RETURN OF INCOME. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF REAL ESTATE AND AS SHOWN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES COMPRISING FD INTEREST INCOME OF RS.48,721/- ONLY AND NIL BUSINESS INCOME HAVE BEEN SHOWN AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/.80IB OF THE ACT. IT WAS NOTICED FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEBITED ANY AMOUNT THEREIN ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID TO PARTNERS ON THEIR CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN THE FIRM, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PARTNERS CAPITAL OF RS.1.21 CRORES AS ON 31.03.2017. AS PER SECTION 40(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM ANY PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO ANY PARTNERS WHICH IS AUTHORISED BY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF PARTNERS DEED AT THE MAXIMUM RATE OF 12% IS TO BE ALLOWED. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE FIRM HAS NOT FURNISHED COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED, COPY OF FORM 10CCB, DATE OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF PROJECT, DATE OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT, AREA OF THE PROJECT, BUILT UP AREA DETAILS ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE VITAL DOCUMENTS IT WAS NOT VERIFIABLE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ACTUALLY ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT IS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT BY NOT CLAIMING THE INTEREST EXPENSES ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN MORE THAN ORDINARY PROFIT WHICH IS HOWEVER CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(13) R.W.S 80IA(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE VIOLATED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(PR.CIT), THEREFORE NOTED THAT ASSESSMENT M/S.SANIDHYA VS. PCIT-1, SURAT /ITA NO.417/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y.: 2013-14 PAGE 3 OF 10 ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL, BUT THERE IS A PROVISION OF PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION PAID TO THE WORKING PARTNERS. PARTNERSHIP DEED HAS ALREADY BEEN FILED AND VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF INTEREST IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. ALIDHARA TAXSPIN ENGINEERS IN TAX APPEAL NO.265/2017 DATED 02.05.2017 IN WHICH HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT ON INTERPRETATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AND CONSIDERING THE WISH OF THE PARTNERS REFLECTED IN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED TO NOT PAY/CHARGE INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL AND REMUNERATION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. HON'BLE HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL, MERE INCORPORATION OF INTEREST ON THE PARTNERS CAPITAL AND REMUNERATION DOES NOT SIGNIFY THAT THE SAME ARE MANDATORY IN NATURE. WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD.TRIBUNAL. WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S.INDUSTRIAL WORKWEAR IN TAX APPEAL NO.1177/2005 VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2006 WHEREIN ALSO IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF M/S.SANIDHYA VS. PCIT-1, SURAT /ITA NO.417/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y.: 2013-14 PAGE 4 OF 10 REMUNERATION AND INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL CANNOT BE THRUST UPON THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE, THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT FILE ANY SLP BEFORE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THESE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN EXAMINED. THEREFORE, PROCEEDINGS MAY BE DROPPED. 4. THE LEARNED PR.CIT, HOWEVER, NOTED THAT THE DETAILS / EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF ELIGIBILITY FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB AND INTEREST AND REMUNERATION WERE ALSO NOT PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS ON RECORD TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S.80IB. THEREFORE, THERE IS ERROR ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT EXAMINING THIS ISSUE. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ONE FLAT NO.6B ADMEASURING 1841 SQ.FEET TO SHRI JAYANTILAL AMBALAL JAIN WHICH EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM LIMIT OF 1500 SQ.FEET. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO NOTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT MAKING ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FOUND ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE SAME WAS SET-ASIDE AND ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO GO THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MAKE VERIFICATION OF EACH AND EVERY CONDITION OF SECTION 80IB(10) AND PASS THE ORDER AS PER LAW. 5. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED PR.CIT. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AUDIT REPORT M/S.SANIDHYA VS. PCIT-1, SURAT /ITA NO.417/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y.: 2013-14 PAGE 5 OF 10 U/S.80IB(10) IN FORM NO.10CCB WAS ALSO DULY FILED ONLINE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31.07.2013. COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGES 12 TO 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH GIVES COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AND DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE ASSESSEE FIRM SUBMITTED THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND ON GOING THROUGH THE SAME THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DETAILS SUBMITTED ON RECORD AND GRANTED DEDUCTION 80IB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO LEARNT THAT THERE WAS AN AUDIT OBJECT ON THE SAME LINE, HOWEVER IT HAS BEEN DROPPED. THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL AND ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE. 6. SINCE ALL THE DETAILS AND RECORDS HAVE BEEN FILED ONLINE, THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DISPUTED. PB 6 - 7 IS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN WHICH ISSUE OF AREA OF FLAT HAS NOT BEEN RAISED. PB-19 & 20 IS SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 15.08.2007 WHEREBY IT IS PROVIDED THAT NO INTEREST SHALL BE PAID ON CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED BY THE PARTNERS. PB- 120 IS COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. ALIDHARA TAXSPIN ENGINEERS (SUPRA). PB-41 IS ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AND DOCUMENTS ON RECORD ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. PB 57 TO 62 ARE THE DETAILS OF THE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH SALE M/S.SANIDHYA VS. PCIT-1, SURAT /ITA NO.417/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y.: 2013-14 PAGE 6 OF 10 DEED TO SHOW THAT AREA OF THE FLAT SOLD BY ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. PB-131 IS COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN WHICH NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CLAIMED AND CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED U/S.143(3). PB-127 IS DROPPING OF THE SAME AUDIT OBJECTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. PB-36 IS APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) DATED 07.09.2018 IN CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. PB-62 IS SALE DEED ALONG WITH PB-51 IS DETAILS OF FLAT SOLD TO JAYANTILAL AMBALAL JAIN SHOWING LESSER AREA AS PER LAW. PB-106 IS ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 U/S.143(3) ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WERE ALSO EXAMINED IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD NOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT NO DOCUMENTS WERE FILED AT ASSESSMENT STAGE AND THAT AREA OF THE ONE OF THE FLATS WAS EXCESSIVE, THEREFORE LEARNED PR.CIT CORRECTLY PASSED THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB 12 TO 15 WHICH IS FORM NO.10CCB WHICH WAS FILED ONLINE TO THE REVENUE M/S.SANIDHYA VS. PCIT-1, SURAT /ITA NO.417/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y.: 2013-14 PAGE 7 OF 10 DEPARTMENT. PB-19 IS SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 15.08.2007 WHEREBY IT WAS PROVIDED THAT NO INTEREST SHALL BE PAID ON CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED BY THE PARTNERS. IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL IS NOT MANDATORY. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, ASSESSEE FILED THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN WHICH ALSO NO INTEREST ON CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED AND CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMILARLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. ALIDHARA TAXSPIN ENGINEERS ETC.,(SUPRA). THEREFORE, THERE WERE NO JUSTIFICATION OF LEARNED PR.CIT TO HOLD THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED MORE THAN ORDINARY PROFIT AS EXEMPT WHILE MAKING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE SUPPLEMENTARY PARTNERSHIP DEED IS ALREADY PART OF THE RECORD OF THE REVENUE IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE COPY OF THE SAME AGAIN AND AGAIN IN EACH YEAR. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CORRECTLY EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. THIS ISSUE IS THEREFORE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. M/S.SANIDHYA VS. PCIT-1, SURAT /ITA NO.417/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y.: 2013-14 PAGE 8 OF 10 9. AS REGARDS, THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE U/S.80IB OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT COPY OF FORM NO.10CCB WAS FILED ONLINE ALONG WITH COMPLETE DETAILS. THE DETAILS OF THE PROJECT WERE ALSO FILED, COPIES OF WHICH ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONGOING SINCE LAST MANY YEARS AND IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BASED ON THE REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB, COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED AND DETAILS OF THE PROJECT APPROVED BY LOCAL AUTHORITY, DETAILS OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND DETAILS OF THE PURCHASERS. IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS THE SIMILAR CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED U/S.80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE SIMILAR PROJECT WAS GOING ON IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THEREFORE, WHERE IS A QUESTION OF NON-FURNISHING ANY DOCUMENT WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/S.80IB HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL UNLESS SOME ADVERSE MATERIAL IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED DETAILS OF THE FLAT SOLD ALONG WITH DETAILS OF FLAT SOLD TO JAYANTILAL AMBALAL JAIN WHICH SHOWS THE AREA OF THE FLAT SOLD WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. FURTHER, NO NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED ALL THE DETAILS AT ASSESSMENT STAGE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR APPEAL M/S.SANIDHYA VS. PCIT-1, SURAT /ITA NO.417/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y.: 2013-14 PAGE 9 OF 10 AS WELL AS IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE LEARNED PCIT SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AMIT CORPORATION 81 CCH 69 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : TRIBUNAL WAS OF OPINION THAT, WHILE FRAMING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, AO HAD CARRIED OUT FULL INQUIRIES AND THEREAFTER FRAMED ASSESSMENT. TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, OBSERVED THAT, ORDER OF AO COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CATEGORIZED AS ERRONEOUS ON GROUNDS STATED BY CIT. TRIBUNAL COMMITTED NO ERROR. WHEN, DURING COURSE OF FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT, AO HAD ACCESS TO ALL RECORDS OF ASSESSEE, AFTER PURSUING SUCH RECORD AO FRAMED ASSESSMENT, SUCH ASSESSMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RE-OPENED IN EXERCISE OF REVISION POWER U/S.263 FOR MAKING FURTHER INQUIRIES. IN FACTS OF CASE, TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY INTERFERED WITH SUCH ORDER. NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. TAX APPEAL DISMISSED. 9.1 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE VIEW POSSIBLE BASED ON FACTS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED PR.CIT SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WE RELY UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. 295 ITR 282. 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ALL THE RECORDS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WERE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ONLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL BUT IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AS WELL. THEREFORE, WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCESS TO ALL THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER PERUSING THE RECORD PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT, THE SAME COULD NOT BE TREATED AS M/S.SANIDHYA VS. PCIT-1, SURAT /ITA NO.417/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y.: 2013-14 PAGE 10 OF 10 ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY APPLY TO THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, ON SAME SET OF FACTS, THE LEARNED PR.CIT SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER. WE, THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO AS TO REVISE U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THERE WERE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR LEARNED PR.CIT TO INVOKE TO JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WE ACCORDINGLY SET-ASIDE THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.143(3) DATED 18.03.2016. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 12. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 17-05-2019. SD/- SD/- (O.P.MEENA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( /JUDICIAL MEMBER) / SURAT, DATED : 17 TH MAY , 2019/ S.GANGADHARA RAO, SR.PS COPY OF ORDER SENT TO- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT