M/S. STATEX ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE V. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-3, , COIMBATORE

ITA 474/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0644 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S. BHARATH
• Keywords: Business income; Revision of order; Audit objection; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 263; 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.474/CHNY/2020 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) M/S. STATEX ENGINEERING P.LTD. E-49, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KURUCHI, COIMBATORE-641 021. VS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, COIMBATORE. PAN: AADCS 0582K ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MRS. K.HEMALATHA, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : MR. S.BHARATH, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 21.04.2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.07.2021 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIT-1, COIMBATORE DATED 04.02.2020 U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE C ASE. 2. THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLANATIONS MADE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE PASSING AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT,1961. 2 ITA NO.474/CHNY/2020 3. THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE QUANTI TATIVE FIGURES OF THE PRODUCTS (IN KGS) REPORTED IN TAX AU DIT REPORT AND VALUES (IN RUPEES) FOR THE QUANTITY REPORTED IN PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 4. THE LD. PCIT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE CLOS ING STOCK RATE FOR THE YARN SOLD TO ARRIVE AT THE SALE VALUE. 5. THE LD. PCIT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT T HAT YARN AND CLOTH PRICES DEPEND ON MARKET FLUCTUATIONS. 6. THE LD. PCIT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT T HAT QUANTITY OF YARN SPECIFIED IN FORM 3CD IS INCLUSIVE OF YARN SUPPLIED FOR CONVERSION DIVISION. 7. THE LD. PCIT ERRED IN ARRIVING AT THE SALE QUANT ITY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PRODUCTION CAPACITY OF THE UNIT. 8. THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED EVERY ASPECT AND PAS SED THE FINAL ORDER. 9. THE LD. PCIT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN GUIDED BY TH E OTHER EVIDENCES SUCH AS AUDIT OBJECTION ETC. FOR INVOKING THE SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE COM PANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF COTTON Y ARN, CLOTH AND DEALING IN TEXTILE TESTING INSTRUMENTS FILED IT S RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ON 31.10.2015 D ECLARING LOSS OF RS.5,70,831/-. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S.143(3) O F THE ACT, ON 28.09.2017 AND DETERMINED TOTAL LOSS AT RS.3,30, 488/- BY 3 ITA NO.474/CHNY/2020 MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS. THE CASE HAS BEEN SUBSEQU ENTLY TAKEN UP FOR REVISION PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 OF THE A CT, AND THUS, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31.07.2019 WAS SERVED ON TH E ASSESSEE U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FILE OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, FOR R EVISION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U /S.143(3) DATED 28.09.2017. THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIT IN SAI D SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HAS PROPOSED TO REVISE ASSESSMENT ORDE R PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS A VARIATION WITH SALE VALUE AS SHOWN IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, WHEN COMPARED TO QUANTITY OF FINISHED GOODS PRODUCED A ND SOLD DURING THE YEAR, AS PER DETAILS FURNISHED IN FORM NO.3CD ISSUED BY AUDITOR AS REQUIRED U/S.44AB OF THE ACT , AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LESSER SALE VALUE TO T HE EXTENT OF RS.8,72,09,103/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE C OMPLETING ASSESSMENT HAS FAILED TO VERIFY ISSUE OF SALES DEC LARED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH REFERENCE TO QUANTITATIVE DE TAILS SUPPLIED IN FORM 3CD TO ASCERTAIN TRUE AND CORRECT DETAILS OF SALES DECLARED FOR THE YEAR, WHICH RENDERED ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE. 4 ITA NO.474/CHNY/2020 4. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE V IDE ITS LETTERS DATED 05.09.2019 & 18.09.2019 SUBMITTED THA T ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE, BECAUSE ISSUE OF VERIFICATION OF SALES WITH REFERENCE TO QU ANTITATIVE DETAILS OF GOODS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD DECLARED IN FORM 3CD HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND AFTER BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED SALES DECLARED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDE D THAT WORKING OF SALES DIFFERENCE ARRIVED AT BY THE PRINC IPAL CIT IS NOT BASED ON ANY FACTS, BUT PURELY ON SUSPICIOUS WITH OUT POINTING OUT HOW AND WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN SALES DEC LARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.143(3) DATED 28.09.2017 CAN NOT BE REVISED U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIT, AFTER CONSIDERING REL EVANT SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT PRIMA-FAC IE, THERE APPEARS TO BE INCONSISTENCY IN FIGURES REPORTED IN COLUMN 5 ITA NO.474/CHNY/2020 NO.35B(B) OF TAX-AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2015 AND FIGURES REPORTED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT TOWA RDS YARN MANUFACTURED AND SOLD FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. THE PRINCIPAL CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT APPEARS THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO FURNISH MONTH-WISE DETAILS OF SALE OF FINI SHED GOODS, BUT THE ASSESSEE CONVENIENTLY FAILED TO SUBMIT MON TH-WISE SALES DETAILS AND THUS, POINT OF SUSPICION OF THE V ERY SAME ISSUE OF THIS PRESENT PROCEEDINGS IS UNDER-REPORTING OF S ALES FIGURES VIS--VIS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND FORM 3CD HAS NO T BEEN PROPERLY VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ALTHOUGH, THE AR FOR THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT YARN TRANSFERRED TO CLOTHING DIVISION IS INCLUDED IN SALES REPORTED IN FORM 3CD, BUT THE AR HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE NECESSARY CLINCHING EVIDENCE TO SHOW THA T SALES REPORTED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND VALUE IN FO RM 3CD HAVE BEEN ACCURATE SO AS TO ENABLE THIS PROCEEDINGS TO B E NULL & VOID. THEREFORE, HE OPINED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE AND HENCE, SET ASIDE AS SESSMENT 6 ITA NO.474/CHNY/2020 ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 28.09. 2017 AND DIRECT HIM TO REDO ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W. AGGRIEVED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LEARNED A.R FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PRINCIPAL CIT HAS ERRED IN REVISION OF ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.263 OF THE ACT, WITH OUT APPRECIATING FACT THAT THE PRINCIPAL CIT HIMSELF HA S NOT ARRIVED AT SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PA SSED ERRONEOUS ORDER WHICH CAUSED PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT ERESTS OF REVENUE. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THA T IN ORDER TO INVOKE JURISDICTION & REVISION U/S.263 OF THE ACT, THE PRINCIPAL CIT HAS TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT TWIN CONDITIONS EM BEDDED THEREIN, AS PER WHICH ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE ERRONEOUS AND FURTHER, IT SHOULD BE PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. IN THIS CASE, THE PRINCIPAL C IT HAS REVISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND OF UNDER-REPORT ING OF SALES TURNOVER IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SUCH UNDER -REPORTING HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT PURELY ON SUSPICIOUS GROUND BY ESTIMATING SALES TURNOVER BASED ON CLOSING STOCK DECLARED B Y THE 7 ITA NO.474/CHNY/2020 ASSESSEE IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND QUANTITATIVE DET AILS SUPPLIED IN FORM 3CD, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLARIFIED THAT SALES REPORTED IN FORM 3CD INCLUDES INTERNAL TRANS FER OF YARN TO THE TUNE OF 745991 KGS TO CLOTHING DIVISION. 7. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTING ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL CIT SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED PRINCIPA L CIT HAS BROUGHT OUT CLEAR FACTS AND REASONS HOW AND WHY ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS , INSOFAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE AND HENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSES SMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ERRONEOUS A ND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE, WHICH CAN NOT BE SUBJECTED TO REVISION PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE A CT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED MATERI ALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT EMP OWERS THE PRINCIPAL CIT TO REVISE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF HE FEELS THAT ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED BY 8 ITA NO.474/CHNY/2020 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT I S PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FROM A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT BEFORE EXERCI SING HIS JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE ACT, THE PRINCIPAL CIT SHOULD SATISFY HIMSELF THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED OR DER WHICH IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVE NUE. UNLESS THE PRINCIPAL CIT PROVES THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS OR WHICH IS NOT PASSED IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE OF FACTS, THE PRINCIPAL CI T CANNOT REVISE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, TO INVOKE JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE ACT, TWIN CO NDITIONS EMBEDDED U/S.263 OF THE ACT MUST CO-EXIST. IN OTH ER WORDS, IF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS ERRONEOUS, BUT IT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE STS OF REVENUE, OR VICE-VERSA, THEN THE PRINCIPAL CIT DOES NOT HAVE A NY POWER TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION IS SUPPORTED BY PLETHORA OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S.MALABAR INDUSTRIES CO.LTD. VS. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC). 9 ITA NO.474/CHNY/2020 9. IN THIS LEGAL BACKGROUND, IF YOU EXAMINE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE ONE HAS TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHETHER THE ASSES SMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE IN RES PECT OF THE ISSUE QUESTIONED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT IN HIS SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31.07.2019. THE PRINCIPAL CIT HAS REVISED ASSESS MENT ORDER ON THE GROUND OF UNDER-REPORTING OF SALES TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF YARN AND SAID UNDER-REPORTING HAS BEEN WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF CLOSING STOCK DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF GOODS PRODUCED AND SOLD IN FORM 3CD. THE PRINCIPAL CIT HAS ARRIVED AT TOTAL SALES OF RS .34.89 CRORES AND AS AGAINST THIS, HE HAD COMPARED SALES TURNOVE R DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.26.17 CRORES AND THUS, POINTE D OUT DIFFERENCE OF RS.8.72 CRORES. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH REASONS GIVEN BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT AND WORKING OF DIFFERE NCE IN SALES TURNOVER ARRIVED AT BY HIM AND AFTER GOING THROU GH EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE OURSELVES DO NOT SUB SCRIBE TO THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT TO TERM ASSE SSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW TH AT IN ORDER TO 10 ITA NO.474/CHNY/2020 TERM ANY ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTERESTS OF REVENUE, THE PRINCIPAL CIT HIMSELF SHOULD SATIS FY ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SPECIFY HOW AND WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEO US AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. IN THIS CA SE, ON PERUSAL OF REASONS GIVEN FOR REVISION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE PRINCIPAL CIT HAS ARRIVED AT UNDER-REPORTING O F SALES PURELY ON SUSPICIOUS GROUNDS AND FURTHER EXTRAPOLATED THE FIGURES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUN T AND TAX- AUDIT REPORT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY FINDING THAT SALES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TRUE AND CORRECT. WE FURTHER NOTED THE PRINCIPAL CIT HAS COMPUTED DIFFERENCE IN SALES TURNOVER ON THE BASIS OF PRODUCTION AND SALES DET AILS OF YARN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM 3CD AND THEN COMP ARED WITH CLOSING STOCK DECLARED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUN T. THE PRINCIPAL CIT FIRST ARRIVED AT AVERAGE SELLING PRI CE OF YARN ON THE BASIS OF QUANTITY OF YARN DECLARED IN FORM 3CD AND VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. FURTHER , HE HAS COMPARED SALES FIGURE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTIMATE SALES WORKED OUT BY HIMSELF ON THE BASIS OF SALE OF QUANTITY OF 11 ITA NO.474/CHNY/2020 YARN DECLARED IN FORM 3CD. IT WAS THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIT THAT QUANTITY OF SALES OF YARN DECLARED IN COLUMN NO.35B(B) OF TAX AUDIT REP ORT INCLUDES QUANTITY OF YARN TRANSFERRED TO CLOTHING DIVISION. IF WE EXCLUDE QUANTITY OF YARN TRANSFERRED TO CLOTHING DIVISION, THEN SALES QUANTITY OF YARN DECLARED IN FORM 3CD AND VALUE OF SALES DECLARED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DOES NOT HAVE ANY DIF FERENCE. THIS FACT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIT BY FILING RECONCILIATION OF QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF GOODS P RODUCED AND SALES DECLARED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE PRINCIPAL CIT, IGNORING ALL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY A RRIVED AT DIFFERENCE IN SALES PURELY BY ESTIMATING SALES FIG URE WITHOUT POINTING OUT HOW SALES DECLARED IN BOOKS OF ACCOU NT IS INCORRECT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIE W THAT THE PRINCIPAL CIT HAS ERRED IN REVISION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER BY MAKING CERTAIN GENERAL OBSERVATIONS BASED ON SUSP ICION AND WRONG WORKING OF SALES AND WITHOUT SPECIFYING ERROR S WHICH ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE, CONTRARY T O THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE R EVISED MERELY ON SUSPICIOUS AND SURMISES GROUNDS. 12 ITA NO.474/CHNY/2020 10. COMING BACK TO CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASS ESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON DECISION OF KOKATA B ENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF NITSON & AMITSU PVT.LTD. VS. AC IT IN ITA NO.160/KOL/2019, WHERE UNDER IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS , THE TRIBUNAL HAS QUASHED REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE P RINCIPAL CIT U/S.263 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER:- 14. APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOW N IN THESE CASE LAWS TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, WE HOL D THAT THE PR. CIT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES AND SH OULD HAVE VERIFIED THE ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS HIMSELF AND POINTED OUT SPECIFICALLY AS TO WHERE AN ERROR HAS OCCURRED WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE AND WHICH IN HIS OPINION WOULD RESULT IN THE ASSESS EE BEING NOT ASSESSED AT THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF INCOME AND ONLY A FTER SUCH ENQUIRIES, EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION HE CAN COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS AN ERROR INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE PR. CIT IS NOT AUTHORI ZED TO SIMPLY SET ASIDE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER BY MAKING CERTAIN GEN ERAL OBSERVATIONS BASED ON SUSPICION AND WRONG WORKING O UT OF THE WIP AND WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY POINTING OUT ERRORS WH ICH ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. MERE SU SPICION OF LIKELY ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS NOT A GROUND FOR REV ISION BY INVOKING POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT. SUCH AN ORDER I S BAD IN LAW. 14.1. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESS EE AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE AC T. 13 ITA NO.474/CHNY/2020 11. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND CONSIDERING FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVE NUE WHICH CAN BE SUBJECT MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HENCE, WE QUASH REVISION ORDER PASSED B Y THE PR.CIT AND RESTORE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 28.09.2017. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY, 2021 SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V.DURGA RAO) ( G.MANJUNATHA) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( / DATED 16 TH JULY, 2021 DS *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF .