ACIT, UDAIPUR V. M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., UDAIPUR

ITA 469/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 46923314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR DEEPAK SEHGALCIT
• Keywords: Depreciation; Audit objection; Additional depreciation; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 32; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH: JODHPUR (BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. NO. 469/JODH/2013 ASSTT. YEAR- 2005-06 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2 VS M/S. HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITE D, UDAIPUR. YASHAD BHAWAN, UDAIPUR. PAN NO. AAACH7354K CROSS OBJECTION NO. 38/JODH/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 469/JODH/2013) ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED VS ACIT, CIRCLE-2, YASHAD BHAWAN, UDAIPUR. UDAIPUR. PAN NO. AAACH7354K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEES BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH. DEPARTMENT BY : DR. DEEPAK SEHGAL-CIT- D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 19/02/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/03/2014 O R D E R PER: HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION (CO) BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT( A), UDAIPUR, DATED 31.07.2013. 2 2. IN THE CO THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A LEGAL ISSUE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT). SINCE THIS ISSUE GOES TO THE VERY ROOT OF THE MATTER, THEREFORE, WE OPTED TO HEAR THE PARTIES , FIRST, ON THIS ISSUE. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY CARRIES ON THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ZINC, LEAD AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS. FOR A.Y. 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME (ROI) ON 29.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 5,87,04,55 ,500/- WHICH WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) ON 26.12.2007 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6090940080/-. AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO LD. CIT(A)S O RDER THE ASSESSED INCOME HAS BEEN REDUCED TO RS. 5,87,04,55,500/-. TH EREAFTER, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT CLAIM REGARDING ADDITIONAL D EPRECIATION ON CPP AND WIND MILLS (ENERGY SAVING DEVICES) WERE WRONGLY MADE. ACCORDINGLY, AFTER RECORDING THE REQUISITE REASONS A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 08.02.2012. T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 10.10.2012 THAT THE RET URN FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ON 29.10.2005 MAY BE TR EATED AS A RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE-COMP ANY REQUESTED THE AO TO PROVIDE A COPY OF REASONS FOR INITIATION OF P ROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. A COPY OF REASONS WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSE SSEE-COMPANY. THE OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST INITIATION OF REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS WERE 3 REJECTED. THE REASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED U/S 143 (3)/148 OF THE ACT AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,17,13,91,709/-. IN T HIS ORDER THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 3,00,93,6 2,091/- ON CPPS, WHICH HAD BEEN ALLOWED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT O RDER. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE LD . CIT(A), WHO HAS GIVEN A PART RELIEF. BOTH PARTIES ARE AGGRIEVED FRO M THE APPELLATE FINDING. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS IN ITS APPEAL. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN: 1. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 30,09 ,36,209/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON N EW PLANT AND MACHINERY IN THE CAPTIVE POWER PLANT AT CHANDER IA LEAD ZINC SMELTER BY IGNORING THE FACTS THAT DURING THE YEAR THE PRODUCTION CAPACITY OF THE PLANT WAS NOT INCREASED, NO SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION WAS ACHIEVED AN D NO POWER WAS GENERATED FROM ASSESSEE'S NEWLY COMMISSIO NED PLANT AND THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFIED THE C ONDITIONS PRESCRIBED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (IIA) OF SECTION 32(1) OF THE I.T. ACT AND HENCE THE ADDITI ONAL DEPRECIATION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DISALLOWED IN TH E ASSESSEE'S CASE. 4 2. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 30,09, 36,209/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY IN THE CAPTIVE POWER PLANT AT CHANDERIA LEAD ZINC SMELTER BY IGNORING THAT THESE ASSETS DO NOT FALL IN CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 32(1) OF THE I.T. ACT AND HENCE THESE ASSETS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF AD DITIONAL DEPRECIATION. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND IN ITS CROSS OBJECTIONS: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PROCEEDIN GS U/S 147/148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE SAME HAVING BEE N DONE ERRONEOUSLY, ARBITRARILY AND ILLEGALLY DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 5. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AT LENGTH EVEN ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CO. I T WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS DISCLOSED TRUE AND COMPLETE MA TERIAL FACTS BEFORE THE AO AND NO NEW FACT HAS COME TO HIS POSSE SSION THEREAFTER. IT WAS STATED THAT BASED ON THE SAME FACTS WHICH WERE DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN AND THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, THE AO HAS INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION. IT WAS ARGUED THAT EVEN AFTER 01.04.1989, WHEN VAST CHARGES 5 WERE MADE IN THE SECTION 147 OF THE ACT REOPENING O F ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT WAS ARGUED BY LD. AR SHRI K. SAMPAT THAT OTHERWISE ALSO ACTION U/S 147 H AS BEEN UNDERTAKEN AFTER THE LAPSE OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE A SSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION AND AS PER THE PROVISO APPENDED TO SECTION 271(1)(C) THE AO IS DEBARRED FROM INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, PARTICULARLY, WHEN NO NEW MATERIAL FACT COMES TO LIGHT AND THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT FAILED TO DISCLOSE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS. IN THE LIGHT OF TH E ABOVE SUBMISSIONS IT HAS BEEN PRAYED THAT, ALTHOUGH ON MERITS THE ISSUES STAND COVERED, IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS DECISIONS, TH E REASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON INVALID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION ON BEING AUTHORITIES BELOW-INITIO VOID . 6. PER CONTRA, LD. CIT(DR) DR. SEHGAL DID NOT AND C OULD NOT DISPUTE THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS APROPOS THE LEGAL GROUND. BUT HE STILL SUPPORTED THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND T HE A.O. 6 7. AFTER CIRCUMSPECTING THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE LI GHT OF THE ORAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE HAVE CULLED OUT THE FOLLOWING FACTS: (I) THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED COMPLETE AND TRUE FACTS OF THE INCOMES PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2005-06. (II) THAT NO NEW FACT MUCH LESS ANY MATERIAL FACT A HS COME TO LIGHT AND IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE AO OTHER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY (III) THAT THE ISSUES REGARDING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIA TIONS ON CPPS STAND COVERED IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE LEGAL POSITION ON THE SUBJ ECT OF REOPENING WE HAVE FOUND THAT THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION OF THE A.O. AND ON THAT BASIS THE AO HAS WRONGLY ASSUMED J URISDICTION U/S 148, WHICH IS AN INVALID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION . ANY ORDER WHICH IS BASED ON INVALID JURISDICTION BECOMES AB-INITIO-VOI D AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE REASONS FROM RECOR DED FOR THE REOPENING, A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED AT PB 1 TO 6 , WE ARE CONVINCED THAT IT IS A CASE OF CHARGE OF OPINION AND NOTHIN G ELSE. THE AO HAS TRIED TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES WHILE INTERPRETING CL. (1) OF S. SECTION (1) OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. THIS EXERCISE BY THE AO OF DEVIATING FROM 7 THE PLAIN AND LITERAL MEANING OF A PROVISION OF THE ACT AND READING BETWEEN THE LINES IS BEYOND HIS POWERS. HE CANNOT R EAD A PROVISION IN ANY MANNER HE LIKES. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.10.2005 SH OWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,87,04,55,500/- FOR AY 2005-06. THE ORIGINA L ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AFTER IN-DEPTH SCRUTINY AND IN VESTIGATION MADE BY THE A.O. ON 26.12.2007 AND HAS ARRIVED AT A TOTAL I NCOME OF RS. 609,09,40,080/-. THE CLAIM RELATING TO GRANT OF ADD ITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON CPPS WAS SPECIFICALLY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORD ER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE SAID APPEAL VIDE ORDER DT. 31.03.2008. THE AFORESAID APPEAL INTER-ALIA INCLUDE D THE GROUNDS RELATING TO THE FOLLOWING POINTS CONNECTED WITH CPP S: A. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF REDUCING THE PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND OF INCOME OF C PPS WAS ALLOWED VIDE PARA 8 TO 8.3 AND PARA 9 TO 9.3 RESPECTIVELY O F THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). B. THUS, VARIOUS ASPECTS RELATING TO CPPS WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED ON 31.03.2008. THE AO PASSED APPEAL EFFECT ORDER ON 23 .05.2008 ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 609,09,40,0807-. 8 THEREAFTER, THE MATTER TRAVELED UP TO THE TRIBUNAL. THE REVENUE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH, WHO, VIDE ORD ER IN ITA NO 379/311/2008 DATED 31.03.2009 DIRECTED THE CIT(A) T O REEXAMINE THE ISSUE. THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE SAID APPEAL VIDE ORDER DT.16.09.2009, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO . THE MATTER RELATING TO GRANT OF EXEMPTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF INCOME OF CPP WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION IN MANY ASSESSMENTS AND APPEALS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS VARIOUS PAS T AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE QUESTION RELATING TO ALLOCATION OF HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES, ELIGIBILITY FOR GRANT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA ETC. WE RE SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. TH E OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING THE AO AND THE COMMISSIONERS N EVER DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIA TION ON CPP AND HAVE ALLOWED THE SAME, AND ALSO DID NOT DISPUTE THE CORR ECTNESS OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION SO ALLOWED BY THE AO AND AL SO DID NOT DISPUTE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION ALLOWED U/S 80IA, AS HAS NOW BEEN DISPUTED IN THE REASON RECORDED U/S 147 WI TH REFERENCE TO THE AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY DUTY PAYABLE ON CONSUMPTI ON ON SELF GENERATED ENERGY. THE REASONS SO RECORDED ARE PATEN TLY INVALID AND ARE 9 BASED ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. AN ATTEMPT WAS BEI NG MADE TO REVIEW THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT ANY VA LID BASIS WHATSOEVER. NO POWER OF REVIEW OR REAPPRAISAL IS VE STED IN THE A.O. TO REASSESS ANY INCOME ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME MATERI AL WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OR ANY OTHER PROVI SION OF THE ACT. IT APPEARS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 / 148 HAVE BEE N INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF SOME 'AUDIT OBJECTIONS'. THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 147 / 148 PURSUANT TO AUDIT OBJECTIONS IS PATENTLY INVALI D AND WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE LD. A.R. RELIED ON THE FOLLOWI NG JUDGMENTS: A. INDIAN & EASTERN NEWSPAPERS SOCIETY V /S CIT. (1979) 119 ITR996 (SC); B. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX V/S KAVIRAJ MA HIPAT SINGH. (1987) 165 ITR 705 (RAJ.); C. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX V/S SMT. GULNAR MARFATIA (1986) 159 ITR 311 (RAJ.); D. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD. V/S ACIT (2006) 284 ITR 593 (GUJ.); AND E. ADANI EXPORTS V/S DCIT. (1999) 240 ITR (GUJ.), THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED AFTER SCRUTINY U/S 143(3) CANNOT BE REOPENED U/S 147 MERE LY ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OR OPINION, NOR REVIEW OR REAPPRAISAL OF MAT ERIAL ALREADY 10 EXISTING ON RECORDS IS PERMISSIBLE FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147/148. IT IS EVIDENT FROM RECORDS THAT THE ASSES SEE COMPANY HAD MADE A TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL RELEVANT FAC TS RELATING TO CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AND ALSO IN RESPECT OF CLAI M FOR GRANT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. A SEPARATE AUDIT REPORT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM 10CCB IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA/80 IB, WAS DULY SUBMITTED IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/ S 80IA IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM CPPS ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITT ED REPLIES PURSUANT TO ALL THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE LD. AO DU RING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THERE WAS NO FAILURE OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS APPARENT FROM PE RUSAL OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT THE QUESTION RELATING TO GR ANT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN PROPERLY EXAMINED, CONSIDERED AND DECIDED AFTER A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RELEVANT FACTS , MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE EXISTING ON RECORDS AND AFTER A CAREFUL ST UDY OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE JUDGMENTS RELATING TO THE SAID POINT. NO FRESH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE AO AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY FRESH MATERIAL OR SUBSEQUENT BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED U/S 147, AS THE AO HA S NO POWER OF REVIEW. THE LD. A.R. RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGME NTS WHICH SUPPORT 11 OUR ABOVE FINDINGS IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A SSESSMENT COMPLETED AFTER SCRUTINY U/S 143(3) CANNOT BE REOPENED U/S 14 7 MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION OR MERELY TO REVIEW THE EARLIER DECISION PASSED BY THE A.O: A. CIT V/S KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (DEL.) (FB); B. CIT V/S KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC); C. GANGA SARAN & SONS P. LTD. VS. ITO & ORS. (1981 ) 130 ITR 1 (SC); D. ITO & ORS VS. LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS [1976] 103 ITR 437 [SC] E. CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO. LTD. VS. ITO & ANR. (1961 ) 41 ITR 191 (SC); F. JUDGMENT DT. 21.8.2008 IN THE CASE OF C IT V/S BIGABASS MAHESHWARI SEWA SAMITI, REGISTERED AS D.B. I.T.A. N O. 73 OF 2006 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT; G. NORTHEN STRIPS LTD. & ANR. V/S ITO. (2011) 331 ITR 224 (DEL.); H. RALLIS INDIA LTD. V/S ACIT. (2010) 3 23 ITR 54 (BORN.); I.ASTEROIDS TRADING & INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. V/S DCIT . (2009) 308 ITR 190 (BOM.); J. ASIAN PAINTS LTD. V/S DCIT & ANR. (2009) 308 ITR 195 (BOM.); K. CARTINI INDIA LTD. V/S ACIT & ORS. (2009) 314 IT R 275 (BOM.); I. SANGHVI SWISS REFILLS (P) LTD. V/S SMT. ARTI H ANDA. (2006) 284 ITR 427 (BOM.); AND M.TECHSPAN INDIA (P). LTD. & ANR. V/S ITO. (2006) 2 83 ITR 212 (DEL.). 12 THE GROUNDS RECORDED IN THE REASONS FOR REOPENING R ELATE TO THE DEDUCTIONS OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON CPPS AND G RANT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM CPPS. EACH SUCH GROUND WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF VERIFICATION AND SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS, AND IN THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS UNDERTAKEN IN THIS ASSESSEE S CASE. THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ESPECIALLY MADE U/S 143(3), MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION OF THE AO, BY REA PPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE ALREADY EXISTING ON RECORDS OR ON THE BASIS OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION OF THE RELATED PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND ITS INTERPRET ATION IS PATENTLY INVALID, WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IS GROSSL Y ERRONEOUS. IT WILL BE IMPERATIVE TO REPEAT THAT ALL SUCH CLAIM AND DEDUCT IONS WERE ACCEPTED AFTER A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RELEVAN T MATERIAL, THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE RELE VANT JUDGMENTS RELATING TO ALL THOSE POINTS. HENCE REOPENING THE SAID C OMPLETED ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY FRESH MATERIAL OR WITHOUT ANY CONTR ARY DIRECT BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, IS PATENTLY ILLEGAL. 8. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, WE STRIKE DOWN THE VERY REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE BASED ON THE CHA RGE OF OPINION OF THE A.O. ON MERITS ALSO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS STRONG BUT SINCE WE 13 HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED IN THE CO, WE NEED NOT TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON ITS MERIT AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. RESULTAN TLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 9. IN THE RESULT THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 TH MARCH, 2014). SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI ) (HARI OM MARATH A) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JODHPUR, DATED : 04 TH MARCH, 2014. VL COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT- 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R BY ORDER, AR ITAT JODHPUR.