THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)- I, Bhopal V. M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., Bhopal

ITA 472/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7969 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2018
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K G GOYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA A RS
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

[ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.472&473/IND/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2010-11 DCIT - 1 , BHOPAL / VS. M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., M.P. NAGAR, BHOPAL ( APPELLANT ) ( REVENUE ) P.A. NO. AADCA1214E C.O. NO.19/IND/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.473/IND/2015) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., M.P. NAGAR, BHOPAL / VS. DCIT - 1, BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (REVENUE ) APPELLANT BY SHRI K.G. GOYAL, SR.D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL & SHRI N.D. PATWA, A.RS DATE OF HEARING: 10.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.01.2019 [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 2 / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO DIFFERENT ORDE RS OF THE CIT(A), BHOPAL, BOTH DATED 23.3.2015 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2010-11. SINCE IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED, BOTH THE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.472/IND/2015, WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.65,41,6 36/- MADE UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.65,41,636/- MADE O N ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) . THE [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 3 FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOP ENED FOR ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 14 7 OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 7.3.2013. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS DISALLOWED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF M/S . AAKRITI ECO CITY PROJECT AND MADE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISS IONS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 4. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE A.O. HAS BROUGHT OUT MATERIAL FACTS TO INFER THAT T HE DEDUCTION IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. D.R. [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 4 STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND SUBMIT TED THAT IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN PERMISSION FROM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BHOPAL ON 17.1.2006. THE SAID PERMISSION WAS TAKEN IN THE LAND ADMEASURING AREA OF 5.34 ACRES. IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT PERMISSION FROM NAGAR NIGAM WAS TAKEN ON 17.1.06. HOWEVER, THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED ON 28.4.06 AND 6.8.2007. THUS, THE PERMISSI ON WAS TAKEN FROM THE NAGAR NIGAM EVEN WHEN THE LANDS WERE NOT ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PERMISSION WAS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE LANDS WERE NOT OWNED BY IT . THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PERMISS ION WAS NOT VALIDLY ISSUED. IT IS THEREFORE INFERRED THAT WH EN THE PERMISSION WAS NOT VALIDLY ISSUED, THEREFORE COMPLETI ON CERTIFICATE FOR THE SAME WOULD ALSO NOT BE VALIDLY GIVE N. THEREFORE, THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AND [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 5 LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE A.O. W AS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IB(10) OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE OPPOSED TH E SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. LD. COUNSE L SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08, IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION WAS THOROUGHLY EXAMINED IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECTS. DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB(10) [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 6 OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. LD. COUNSEL REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WR ITTEN SYNOPSIS. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 7 [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 8 [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 9 [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 10 [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 11 [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 12 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. OBJECTION OF THE A.O. IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDERTAKING DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTI ON OF HOUSING PROJECTS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT OWNER OF T HE LAND OF WHICH PROJECT IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN. THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS BEFORE THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 13 THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS 341 ITR 403, WH EREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE OWNE RSHIP OF THE LAND IS NOT SINE-QUA-NON FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS OBJECTION OF THE A.O. IS CONTRARY TO THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. FURTHER, THE A.O S OBJECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY ACTING AS A CONTR ACTOR TO THE CUSTOMER TO WHOM LAND IS INDEPENDENTLY SOLD AN D THERE AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS BEING DONE AS PER AGREEMEN T. THIS ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO CHANGE INTO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES. HENCE, THIS OBJECTION IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINED AND LASTLY THE A.O. OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE PERMISSION FROM THE N AGAR NIGAM IS NOT VALID SINCE SAME HAS BEEN TAKEN BEFORE ACQUIRING THE LAND, SINCE WE HAVE NOT SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION OF THE A.O. THAT OWNERSHIP OF LAND ON WHICH [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 14 PROJECT IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN, WE THEREFO RE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT INTO THIS OBJECTION OF THE A.O . THIS OBJECTION IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, SAME IS REJ ECTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT SEE ANY IN FIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). SAME IS HEREBY UP HELD. 6. NOW WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.473/IND/2015. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,24,27 ,273/- MADE UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 7. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT OF RS.2,24,27,273/-. THE F ACTS ARE IDENTICAL AS WERE IN ITA NO.472/IND/2015. THE RESPEC TIVE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES HAVE ADOPTED THE SAME ARGUMENT AS WERE IN ITA NO.472/IND/2015. THE ISSUE O F [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 15 ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ITA NO.472/IND/2015, WHEREIN WE HAVE HELD AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MAT ERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. OBJECTION OF THE A.O. IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDERTAKING DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECTS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT OWNER OF THE LAND OF WHICH PROJECT IS CLAIMED T O HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN. THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS BEFORE THE HON'B LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS 341 I TR 403, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE OWN ERSHIP OF THE LAND IS NOT SINE-QUA-NON FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS OBJEC TION OF THE A.O. IS CONTRARY TO THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CANNOT BE S USTAINED. FURTHER, THE A.OS OBJECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS M ERELY ACTING AS A CONTRACTOR TO THE CUSTOMER TO WHOM LAND IS INDEPEND ENTLY SOLD AND THERE AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS BEING DONE AS PER AGREE MENT. THIS ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING S, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO CHANGE INTO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. HENCE, THIS OBJECTION IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINED AND LASTLY THE A.O. OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE PERMI SSION FROM THE NAGAR NIGAM IS NOT VALID SINCE SAME HAS BEEN TAKEN BEFORE ACQUIRING THE LAND, SINCE WE HAVE NOT SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION OF THE A.O. THAT OWNERSHIP OF LAND ON WHICH PROJECT IS CLA IMED TO HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN, WE THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT INT O THIS OBJECTION OF THE A.O. THIS OBJECTION IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, SAME IS REJECTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO N OT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). SAME I S HEREBY UPHELD. 8. THEREFORE, TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 16 9. NOW WE TAKEN UP CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN C.O. NO.19/IND/2016, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALL OWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A AT RS.64,96,645/- SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE INCOME WHICH DID NOT FORM PART O F TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT OR OTHERWISE. 10. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THE CROSS OBJECTIO N IS RELATED TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE BY INVOKING THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT WAS NOTICED THAT IT HAD SHOWN INVESTMENT OF RS.10,04,97,600/- AS ON 31.3.2010 IN E QUITY SHARES/SHARE APPLICATIONS OF VARIOUS GROUP COMPANIES. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS INVESTMENT OF RS.6,82,39,760/- IN EQUITY SHARE/SHARE APPLICATION OF THESE COMPANIES AS ON 31.3.2009 AND THUS NET INVESTMEN T [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 17 OF RS.3,22,57,840/- HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEET HAD CLAIMED LOANS AND ADVANCES TO THE GROUP COMPANIES ON 31.3.2009 AND 31.3.2010 RESPECTIVELY OF RS.8,63,800/- AND RS.1,71,87,000/-. IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THESE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD OF ADVANCES FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT GROUP COMPANIES HAD ALLOWED EQUITY SHARES IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AGAINST THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THEM. THUS, THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THESE COMPANIES WERE IN THE NATURE OF DEPOSITS FOR ALLOTMENT OF EQUITY SHARES AND REFLECTED T HE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT AS ADVANCE GIVEN FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DIV IDEND RECEIVED FROM INVESTMENT IN SUCH COMPANIES IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE IN VOKING [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 18 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT COMPUTED DISALL OWANCE AS PER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 OF RS.64,95,645/-. 11. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERR ED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT DU RING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, GROUND AGAINST DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT WAS WITHDRAWN. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT CROSS OBJECTI ON. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THIS GR OUND WAS WITHDRAWN. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS CLAIM BEFORE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, HE CONTENDED THAT WHERE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT COULD BE MADE IF THERE WAS NO EXEMPT INCOME IS A QUESTION INVOLVING INTERPRETATIO N OF LAW. ANY ADMISSION OF FACTS MAY BE BINDING UPON THE ASSESSEE BUT AN ADMISSION OF LAW CANNOT BE BINDING ON T HE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMEN T OF [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 19 THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF BAGODI A UDYOG VS. CIT 244 CTR 339. FURTHER, IT IS CONTENDE D THAT THERE CAN BE NO ESTOPPELS AGAINST THE LAW. HE CONTEND ED THAT AT THE TIME WHEN THE COUNSEL SHRI ROHIT PATHAKWAS CONTESTING THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LAW ON THE SUBJECT HAD NOT DEVELOPED FULLY AND BEING UNAWARE OF T HE LEGAL PLEA, HE DID NOT PRESS THE CLAIM. HOWEVER, THE JUDGEMENT HAD COME SUBSEQUENTLY WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME, DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE. 12. LD. D.R. OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BLOW HOT AND COLD AT THE SAME TIME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE INSTRUCTION OF THE ASSESSE E CONSCIOUSLY HAD WITHDRAWN GROUND. HENCE, THE ASSESS EE CANNOT BE ALLOWED FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES. [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 20 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE, THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT WHEREIN I T HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED EXEMPT INCOME IN A PARTICULAR ACCOUNTING YEAR, THE RESORT TO SECTION 14A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ADOPTED. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE LAW. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE SUBMIS SION OF THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PR ESSED GROUND AGAINST INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. IN THE ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY, BUT IN THE PRESEN T CASE WHERE THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT CAME LATER TO THE ASSESSEES WITHDRAWAL OF THE GROUND, WE DEEM IT PROPE R IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THAT ATLEAST AN OPPORTUNITY BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE GIVEN. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THIS GROUND OF [ITA NOS.472&473/IND/2015 & CO 19/IND/2016] [M/S. AG8 VENTURES LTD., BHOPAL] 21 CROSS OBJECTION TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR D ECISION AFRESH. THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AR E DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 . 01.2019. SD/- (MANISH BORAD) SD/- (KUL BHARAT) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER INDORE; DATED : 08/01/2019 VG/SPS COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUAR D FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INDORE