Field Ordence Depot, Bathinda V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 421/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5603 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL DHAWANLD
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AND SH.N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I. T. A. NOS. 420 TO 422/(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2014-15 FIELD ORDENACE DEPOT C/O 56-APO, BATHINDA CANTT. BATHINDA CANTT. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS CELL, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD (U.P.) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: RAHUL DHAWAN (LD. D.R.) DATE OF HEARING:25.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT:18.05.2017 ORDER PER N. K. CHOUDHRY (JM): THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE RAISED THE COMMON ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION THEREFORE; ALL THE THREE APPEAL S HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR CONSIDERATION CONJOINTLY. FOR THE SAKE OF BRE VITY AND CONVENIENCE, THE GROUNDS AND FACTS OF APPEAL NO. 420/(A SR)2015 HAVE BEEN TAKEN UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L. 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS), BATHINDA, HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN CONFIR MING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREBY CHARGING LATE FILING FEES AT RS. 23,800/- U/S 234E OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS FUR THER GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOU T APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. 2. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT APPRECIATE TH AT INTIMATION U/S 200A OF THE IT ACT, 1961, IS NOT LEGAL AND IS NONEST IN THE EYES OF LAW AS THE LAW STOOD PRIOR TO 1 ST JUNE 2015, THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION THEREIN FOR RAISING A DEMAND IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES U/S 234E. THE ITA NO S. 420 TO 422 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2014-15 2 LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT ON THE BASIS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E, SUCH A LEVY COULD NOT BE EFFECTED IN THE COUR SE OF INTIMATION U/S 200A PRIOR TO 01/06/2015. AS SUCH, THE ORDER ITSELF PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ILLEGAL, INVALID, VOID ABINITI O AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. SIMILARLY, THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS G ROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THERE IS A DELA Y OF 63 DAYS IN FILING INSTANT APPEALS AND AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL, NO APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THIS STAGE, ONE APPL ICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED IN THE NAME OF LD . COUNSEL SIGNED BY LD. COUNSEL AND IN THE APPLICATION IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY THERE IS DELAY OF 63 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEALS. HO WEVER, THERE ARE GENUINE CIRCUMSTANCES AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEALS AS A MATTER OF FACT THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE (ADVOCATE OFFICE) AND DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE MISTAKE OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS (ADVOCATE STAFF), THESE APPEALS WERE NOT FILED IN TIME, THEREFORE, THERE WAS A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN FILING BELATED A PPEALS. 4. IN THE APPLICATION, IT IS ALSO WRITTEN THAT EVER Y DAY DELAY CANNOT BE STRETCHED BY A PEDANTIC APPROACH IF EVERY DAYS HAS TO BE EXPLAINED WHY NOT EVERY HOURS DELAY, EVERY SECOND DELAY. IN THE APPL ICATION, IT IS WRITTEN THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAN D ACQUISITION VS. MST KALIGI REPORTED 161 ITR 47. ITA NO S. 420 TO 422 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2014-15 3 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY OBJECTED ON CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES AND BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE CASE, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIAT E TO DEAL WITH THE CONDONATION OF DELAY AS IF REFLECTS THAT AT THE TIME O F FILING APPEAL, NO SUCH APPLICATION/PRAYER HAVE BEEN FILED/MADE AT THE TI ME OF FILING APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE OF ITS COUNSEL, EVEN OTHERWISE THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELA Y WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT FROM THE APPLICATION IS ALSO DOES NOT REFLECT THAT DUE TO WHOSE NEGLIGENCE THE APPEALS WERE NOT FILED IN TIME AND WHE N THE PAPERS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN (ADVOCATE OFFICE). FROM THE CONTE NTS OF THE APPLICATION, WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT PR EVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM FILING OF AN APPEAL FOR CONDONATION OF DEL AY AT THE TIME OF FILING APPEAL IN OCTOBER, 2015. THE APEX COURT RE MINDED THAT SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN THIS CONTEXT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN LEGAL AND REASONABLE MANNER SO AS TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE, H OWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, W E DO NOT FIND ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIM OR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IT I S UNIVERSAL LAW THAT LATCHES CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO SUB-SERVE THE DEFAULT ER, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S IT APPEARS TO BE SOUND ON MERIT, THEREFORE, IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE AND ITA NO S. 420 TO 422 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2014-15 4 TO SUB-SERVE THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE IN CLINED CONDONE THE DELAY OF APPEALS. 7. NOW LET US PROCEED WITH THE MERITS OF THE CASE FROM THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL, IT ENGAGED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATION BENCH OF ITAT , AMRITSAR PASSED IN SIBIA HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LTD. IN ITA NO. 90/(A SR) 2015, WHICH HAS BEEN FURTHER FOLLOWED BY AMRITSAR BENCH IN VARIOUS CASE . 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HEAVILY RELIED UPO N THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES A ND ALSO RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATI ON BENCH IN THE AFORESAID CASE OF SIBIA HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LTD.(SUPRA) . 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. IN ADDITION TO HIS ARGUM ENT ON THE MERITS, LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO T HE REPORTS ABOUT THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HONBLE HIGH COURTS, INCLUDING HO NBLE KERALA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF NARATH MAPILA LP SCHOOL VS UN ION OF INDIA [WP (C) 31498/2013(J)], HONBLE KARANATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADITHYA BIZOR P SOLUTIONS VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 6918- 6938/2014(T-IT), HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OM PRAKASH DHOOT VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 1981 OF 201 4] AND OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 771 OF 2014], GRANTING STAY ON THE DE MANDS RAISED IN RESPECT OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E. THE FULL TEXT O F THESE DECISIONS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE US. HOWEVER, AS ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE NO ORDERS FROM THE HONBLE COURTS ABOVE RETRAINING US FROM OUR ITA NO S. 420 TO 422 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2014-15 5 ADJUDICATION ON MERITS IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL, AND AS, IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING, THIS APPEAL REQUIRES A DJUDICATION ON A VERY SHORT LEGAL ISSUE, WITHIN A NARROW COMPASS OF MATERIAL FACTS, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. WE MAY PRODUCE, FOR READY REFERENCE, SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 AND WAS BROUGHT INTO EFFECT FROM 1ST JULY 2012. THIS STATUTORY PROVISION IS AS FOLLOWS: 234E. FEE FOR DEFAULTS IN FURNISHING STATEMENTS (1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHERE A PERSON FAILS TO DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C, HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF FEE, A S UM OF TWO HUNDRED RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. (2) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE OR COLLECTI BLE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. (3) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL BE PAID BEFORE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO BE DELIVERE D A STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-SECTION (3) OF SEC TION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 20 6C. (4) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO A STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C WHIC H IS TO BE DELIVERED OR CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED FOR TAX DEDU CTED AT SOURCE OR TAX COLLECTED AT SOURCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2012. 6. WE MAY ALSO REPRODUCE THE SECTION 200A WHICH WA S INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 201 0. THIS STATUTORY PROVISION, AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIM E, WAS AS FOLLOWS: 200A: PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT S OURCE (1) WHERE A STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE, O R A CORRECTION STATEMENT, HAS BEEN MADE BY A PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO IN THIS SE CTION AS DEDUCTOR) UNDER SECTION 200, SUCH STATEMENT SHAL L BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY: (A) THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE COMPUTED AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS, NAMELY: (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE STATEMENT; OR ITA NO S. 420 TO 422 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2014-15 6 (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMAT ION IN THE STATEMENT; (B) THE INTEREST, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT; (C) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT O F AMOUNT COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 200 AND SECTION 201, AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY O F TAX OR INTEREST; (D) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AN D SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UND ER CLAUSE (C); AND (E) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PURSUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (C) SHA LL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR: PROVIDED THAT NO INTIMATION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE SENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END O F THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED. EXPLANATION : FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION , 'AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN TH E STATEMENT' SHALL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN E NTRY, IN THE STATEMENT (I) OF AN ITEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER ITEM IN SUCH STATEMENT; (II) IN RESPECT OF RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR CE, WHERE SUCH RATE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), THE BOARD MAY MAKE A SCHEME FOR CENTRALIZED PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO EXPEDITIOUSLY DETERMINE THE T AX PAYABLE BY, OR THE REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR AS REQUIRED UNDER THE SAID SUBSECTION. ITA NO S. 420 TO 422 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2014-15 7 7. BY WAY OF FINANCE ACT 2015, AND WITH EFFECT FROM 1S T JUNE 2015, THERE IS AN AMENDMENT IN SECTION 200A AND THIS AMEN DMENT, AS STATED IN THE FINANCE ACT 2015, IS AS FOLLOWS: IN SECTION 200A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IN SUB-SECTI ON (1), FOR CLAUSES (C) TO (E), THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED WITH EFFECT FROM THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2 015, NAMELY: (C) THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E; (D) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT O F THE AMOUNT COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AND CLAUSE (C) AGA INST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 200 OR SECTION 201 OR SECTION 234E AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY O F TAX OR INTEREST OR FEE; (E) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AN D SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UND ER CLAUSE (D); AND (F) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PURSUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (D) SHA LL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR. 8. IN EFFECT THUS, POST 1ST JUNE 2015, IN THE COURSE OF PROCESSING OF A TDS STATEMENT AND ISSUANCE OF INTIMATION UNDER SE CTION 200A IN RESPECT THEREOF, AN ADJUSTMENT COULD ALSO BE MADE I N RESPECT OF THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT WHAT IS IMP UGNED IN APPEAL BEFORE US IS THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF T HE ACT, AS STATED IN SO MANY WORDS IN THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION ITSELF, AN D, AS THE LAW STOOD, PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE 2015, THERE WAS NO ENABLIN G PROVISION THEREIN FOR RAISING A DEMAND IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UND ER SECTION 234E. WHILE EXAMINING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE INTIMATION U NDER SECTION 200A, WE HAVE TO BE GUIDED BY THE LIMITED MANDATE OF SECT ION 200A, WHICH, AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, PERMITTED COMPUTATIO N OF AMOUNT I.T.A. NO.90 /ASR/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 PAGE 6 OF 7 RECOVERABLE FROM, OR PAYABLE TO, THE TAX DEDUCTOR AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS: (A). AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ARITH METICAL ERRORS AND INCORRECT CLAIMS APPARENT FROM ANY INF ORMATION IN HE STATEMENT - SECTION 200A(1)(A) (B). AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT FOR INTEREST, IF AN Y, COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STA TEMENT. - SECTION 200A(1)(B) ITA NO S. 420 TO 422 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2014-15 8 9. NO OTHER ADJUSTMENTS IN THE AMOUNT REFUNDABL E TO, OR RECOVERABLE FROM, THE TAX DEDUCTOR, WERE PERMISSIBL E IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AS IT EXISTED AT THAT POINT OF TIME. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, IN OUR CONS IDERED VIEW, THE ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E WAS INDEED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS CONTEMP LATED UNDER SECTION 200A. THIS INTIMATION IS AN APPEALABLE ORDE R UNDER SECTION 246A(A), AND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE E XAMINED LEGALITY OF THE ADJUSTMENT MADE UNDER THIS INTIMATION IN THE LI GHT OF THE SCOPE OF THE SECTION 200A. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DONE SO. H E HAS JUSTIFIED THE LEVY OF FEES ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 234E. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER SUCH A LEVY CO ULD BE EFFECTED IN THE COURSE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A. THE AN SWER IS CLEARLY IN NEGATIVE. NO OTHER PROVISION ENABLING A DEMAND IN R ESPECT OF THIS LEVY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO US AND IT IS THUS AN ADMITT ED POSITION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ENABLING PROVISION UNDER SECTION 200A, NO SUCH LEVY COULD BE EFFECTED. AS INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A , RAISING A DEMAND OR DIRECTING A REFUND TO THE TAX DEDUCTOR, CAN ONLY BE PASSED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR WITHIN WHICH THE RELATED TDS STATEMENT IS FILED, AND AS THE RELATED TDS STAT EMENT WAS FILED ON 19TH FEBRUARY 2014, SUCH A LEVY COULD ONLY HAVE BEE N MADE AT BEST WITHIN 31ST MARCH 2015. THAT TIME HAS ALREADY ELAPS ED AND THE DEFECT IS THUS NOT CURABLE EVEN AT THIS STAGE. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO I.T.A. NO.90 /ASR/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 PAGE 7 OF 7 BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234 E IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WE, THEREFOR E, UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED L EVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELI EF ACCORDINGLY. 10. ON THE AFORESAID CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER (SUPRA ) AND FACTUAL POSITION OF THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INSTANT APPEALS RELATED TO THE PERIOD BEFORE 1 ST JUNE, 2015, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING ITA NO S. 420 TO 422 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2014-15 9 THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATION BENCH DATED 9 TH JUNE, 2015 IN THE CASE OF SIBIA HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LTD. (SUPRA). WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.05.20 17. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (N. K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER DATED:18.05.2017 /PK/PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER