ALLORA SERVICE STATION, Jaipur V. CIT, Alwar

ITA 487/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7831 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHASH CHANDRA
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 487/JP/2013 M/S. A LLORA SERVICE STATION VS. CIT, ALWAR 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. ME ENA) ITA NO. 487/JP/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAN : AAJFA 0367 M M/S. ALLORA SERVICE STATION VS. THE CIT KUMHER GATE, ALWAR ALWAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA DATE OF HEARING: 15-10-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05-12-2014 ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT, ALWAR DATED 26-03-2013 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL. 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT HOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) DT.14.12.2010 AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE (TDS) U/S L94C ON PAYMENT OF HIRE CHARGES OF RS.23,80,566/- TO M/S ANIL KUMAR HEMANT KUMAR AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS DISALLOWABLE U/S 40 (A)(IA) IGNORING THAT:- ITA NO. 487/JP/2013 M/S. A LLORA SERVICE STATION VS. CIT, ALWAR 2 (I) ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEBITED THE ABOVE AMOUNT IN P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE U /S 40(A)(IA) ARISES. (II) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY AMOUNT TO M/S AN IL KUMAR HEMANT KUMAR TOWARDS HIRE CHARGES BUT ONLY THE AMOUNT RECE IVED FROM BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD IS REIMBURSED TO THEM. (III) NO AMOUNT REMAINED PAYABLE TO M/S ANIL KUMAR HEMANT KUMAR AND THEREFORE SECTION A0(A)(IA) IS NOT APPLICABLE. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE AO TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS. 17, 36,70L/- RECEIVED FROM BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (BPCL) AND ON WHICH TDS HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT SAME IS NOT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IT IS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACCOU NT OF M/S ANIL KUMAR HEMANT KUMAR AND CREDITED TO ITS ACCOUNT. 4. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED O N FACTS AND IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE AO TO CONSIDER OTHER ISSUES AL SO WHICH MAY COME TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) / 263. 2.1 IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT I. THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS AT SOURCE U/S 194C IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF HIRE TRUCK CHARGES OF RS. 23,80,655/- TO M/S. ANIL KUMAR HEMANT KUMAR (FOR SHORT AKHK). II. FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF THE SAME, THE AMOUNT IN QUESTI ON, IT WAS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED IN TERMS OF SECT 40(A)( IA) OF THE ACT. III. THE LD. CIT THUS DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 17,36,701/- RECEIVED FROM BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (FOR SHORT BPCL) CLAIMING THE TDS IN ITS CASE ALTHOUGH THE INCOME RELATING TO TDS CERTIFICATE WAS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF M/S. ANI L KUMAR HEMANT KUMAR. ITA NO. 487/JP/2013 M/S. A LLORA SERVICE STATION VS. CIT, ALWAR 3 2.2 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RETAIL TRADING IN PETROL EUM PRODUCTS I.E. PETROL, DIESEL, AND LUBRICANTS ETC. THE ASSESSEE BEING DEAL ER OF M/S. BPCL; AS PER ITS POLICY, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVIDE A DEDICATED TANKER FOR CARRYING THE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS OF THE COMPANY. TO FULFILL THIS CONDITION, ASSESSEE OFFERED A TANKER IN THIS BEHALF OWNED BY ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. ANIL KUMAR HEMANT KUMAR WITH BUSINESS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE D EALERSHIP OF BPCL WILL REMAIN WITH ASSESSEE AND THE RESULTS OF TANKER PLYING OPERATIONS WILL BELONG TO AKHK. THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY BP CL WHICH WAS PAYING HIRE CHARGES OF THE TANKER LORRY TO THE ASSE SSEE AS PER BUSINESS CONDITIONS. ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING AN A/C OF AKHK IN ITS BOOKS IN WHICH ALL THE RECEIPTS FROM BPCL WERE CREDITED AND EXPEND ITURE INCURRED ON TRUCK WERE DEBITED. THUS THE TANKER CHARGES WERE RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF AKHK AND EXPENSES WERE RECOUPED FROM THE SAME. ONLY TDS DEDUCTED BY BPCL WAS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE AS THEY WERE IN ITS NAME. T HE HIRE INCOME FROM BPCL HAS BEEN RETURNED BY M/S. ANIL KUMAR HEMANT KU MAR AS ITS INCOME WHICH IS ASSESSED AS THEIR INCOME. 2.3 BEFORE CIT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSME NT IN THIS CASE WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY AO. DURING THE COUR SE THEREOF, ALL THE RELEVANT ENQUIRIES IN THIS BEHALF WERE CONDUCTED BY THE AO WHICH ARE ITA NO. 487/JP/2013 M/S. A LLORA SERVICE STATION VS. CIT, ALWAR 4 EVIDENT FROM VARIOUS QUERIES WHICH ARE REPLIED BY A SSESSEE ALONG WITH COPIES OF AGREEMENTS AND BPCL RECEIPTS. THE BUSINESS CONTR ACT BETWEEN M/S. BPCL AND THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. ANIL KUMAR HEMANT KU MAR WERE ALSO VERIFIED BY AO. THIS BEING SO BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT WAS REPRESENTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT THAT PROPOSED IS SUES WERE NEITHER ERRORS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND DO N OT FALL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE ISSUES WERE VERIFIED AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED AFTER DUE INQU IRY; THERE WAS NEITHER ANY ERROR COMMITTED BY THE AO NOR ANY PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LD CIT HOWEVER, SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTED TO REDO THE SAME BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLIES, SUBMIS SIONS AND DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF ABOV E DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED AN ORDER WHIC H IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND DESE RVES TO BE CANCELLED. I, THEREFORE, CANCEL THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY TH E AO U/S 143(3) ON 14- 12-2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUES, APART FROM OTHER ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14-12-2010 AND THE IS SUES WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY COME INTO THE NOTICE OF AO DURING THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 2.4 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 2.5 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONG WITH PAPER BOOK AND THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE CONTENDE D AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 487/JP/2013 M/S. A LLORA SERVICE STATION VS. CIT, ALWAR 5 1. IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO EN QUIRED ABOUT THE HIRE CHARGES OF TANKER LORRY. THE ASSESSE E EXPLAINED THE DETAILS VIDE LETTER FILED BY CA SHRI SUNIL MITTAL B EFORE THE AO. AFTER VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, SUPPORTING DOCUMEN TS, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ASSESSES EXPLANATION, THE A O COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 14-12-2010. THE ONLY POSSI BLE SHORTCOMING WHICH INITIATED LD. CIT IS A SHORT ASSESSMENT ORDER . IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED FORMAT ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER; THE SAME IS TO BE READ ALONG WITH QUERIES AN D REPLIES ADDRESSED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. 2. THE LD. CIT HOWEVER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 263 FOR TH E REASON THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE PROPER ENQUIRIES REGARDING PAYMENT MADE TO M/S. ANIL KUMAR HEMANT KUMAR AND THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE TDS IN RESPECT OF THE HIRE CHARGES BUT NOT DISCLOSE D THE RECEIPT OF HIRE CHARGES IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT . THE ASSESS EE FILED THE DETAILED REPLY AS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 3-4 OF THE CIT ORDER. T HE LD. CIT HOWEVER HELD THAT AO HAS NOT MADE PROPER ENQUIRY AND THE AB OVE ISSUES AND CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE ISSUES. 3. FROM THE FACTS STATED ABOVE, IT CAN BE NOTED THA T THE AO HAS MADE THE ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES RAISE D BY LD. CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 263. THUS IT IS NOT A CASE OF NO ENQUIR Y. THE ORDER PASSED BY AO U/S 143(3) DATED 14-12-2010, THEREFORE, CANNO T BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE FOR WANT OF ENQUIRY. THE LD. CIT HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 263 F OR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT ON THE POSSIBILITY OR GUESSWORK BASED ON HIS SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASONS AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES BEFORE HIM. TO WHAT EXTENT, THE AO SHOULD MAKE AN INVESTIGATION IS A MATTER LEFT TO THE WISDO M OF THE AO U/S 143(3). THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT U/S 263 FOR MAKING THE PROPER ENQUIRY CONSIDERING THE ISSUES RAISED BY HIM IS NOT VALID. 2.6 THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS. I. CIT VS. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. (2013) 94 DTR 21( DELH)(H.C). II. CIT VS. AMIT CORPN. (2013) 213 TAXMAN 19 (GUJ. H.C. ) (MAG.) ITA NO. 487/JP/2013 M/S. A LLORA SERVICE STATION VS. CIT, ALWAR 6 III. CIT VS. LEISURE WEAR EXPORTS LTD. (2011) 341 ITR 16 6 (DEL.H.C). IV. PRADEEP BANDHU VS. CIT (2013) 81 DTR 289 (JODHPUR. TRIBUNAL). V. MANISH KUMAR VS. CIT 134 ITD 27 /17 ITR TRIBUNAL ) 324 (INDORE). IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PASSED BY THE AO DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND TH E AO HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE RELEVANT ASPECTS AND THEREAFTER CAME TO CONCLUS ION WHICH IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE LD. CIT ACTION AT THE MOST AMOUNT TO ADOPTING ANOTHER POSSIBLE VIEW. THE LD. A R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIA L CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IF AO HAS ADOP TED ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM CANNOT BE CALLED ERRONEOUS ORDER MERELY BECAUSE ANOTHER VIEW IS POSSIBLE. IT IS CONTENDED T HAT EVEN ON MERITS THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A DEALER OF M/S. B PCL HAS BEEN OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE CORRESPONDING TDS CERT IFICATE ISSUED BY BPCL IN ITS NAME HAS BEEN DULY CLAIMED BY WAY OF CREDIT FOR PREPAID TAXES. THUS M/S. ANIL KUMAR HEMANT KUMAR WAS ELIGIBLE ONLY TO T HE HIRING CHARGES WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CREDITED TO ITS NAME BY THE AS SESSEE. THE INCOME EARNED BY M/S. ANIL KUMAR HEMANT KUMAR HAS BEEN INC LUDED IN ITS RETURN WHICH IS ACCEPTED BY THE AO. ITA NO. 487/JP/2013 M/S. A LLORA SERVICE STATION VS. CIT, ALWAR 7 2.7 APROPOS NON DEDUCTION OF TDS FROM M/S ANIL KUMA R, IT IS PLEADED THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES ARE NOT LIABLE TO TD S U/S 194C. ALTERNATIVELY ALSO HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES (P) LTD. VS. CIT, 293 ITR 226 COMES TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS SQUARELY HELD THAT IF THE INCOME TAX IS PAID BY THE RECIPIENT IN ITS ASSESSMENT, IN THAT CASE PA YER CANNOT BE HELD AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTE D. CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE OF SEC 40 (A) (IA) IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE ISSUE OF B EING REIMBURSEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVELY GETS COVERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT. 2.8 THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT A ND CONTENDS THAT BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DES IGN TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX WHICH HAVE BEEN NOT CONSIDERED BY AO AND RIG HTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REV ENUE WHILE EXERCISING HIS REVISION POWERS U/S 263. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF L D. CIT IS JUSTIFIED. 2.9 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN REJOINDER C ONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVADED TAX. IT IS SETTLED LAW BY H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN ARRANGE ITS BUSINESS AFFAIRS WITHI N THE PARAMETERS FIXED TO REDUCE THE TAX. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS ARE GOVERNED B Y WRITTEN AGREEMENTS. IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF INQUIRY BY AO. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT SCOPE AND MANNER OF INQUIRY IS LEFT TO THE WISDOM OF AO. WHILE INSPE CTING THE RECORD, THE ITA NO. 487/JP/2013 M/S. A LLORA SERVICE STATION VS. CIT, ALWAR 8 HIGHER OFFICER MAY HAVE DIFFERENT PERCEPTION OF ABO UT MANNER OF INQUIRY; IT IS BOUND TO BE THERE AS NO TWO MINDS THINK EQUAL. AN O RDER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E ONLY ON DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT MANNER OF INQUIRY. DEPARTMENT HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT M/S ANIL KUMAR HAS BEEN ASSESSED ON AN INCOME WHICH INCLUDES RESIDUE OF TRUCK RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSE SSEE. 2.10 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT M/S. BPCL AWARDED CONTRACT TO THE ASS ESSEE SUBJECT TO ARRANGEMENT OF DEDICATED TANKER FOR SUPPLY OF PETRO LEUM PRODUCTS. THIS WAS ARRANGED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF A TANKER OWNED B Y ASSOCIATE CONCERN. BPCL PAID THE TRANSPORTATION TO ASSESSEE WHICH IS C REDITED BY IT IN THE A/C OF AKHK ONLY AND TDS IS CLAIMED BY IT AS PER CERTIFICA TE. FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT EMERGES THAT THE AO ASKED FOR QUERIES W HICH HAVE BEEN REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IN HIS ORDER HAS CLEARLY MENTI ONED THAT RELEVANT RECORDS WERE PRODUCED AND VERIFIED ON TEST CHECK BASIS AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED AFTER DISCUSSIONS, THE INFORMATION/LETTER SU PPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ON RECORD. THIS LEADS TO AN INFERENCE THAT A O HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE RELEVANT ASPECTS ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT, AND THERE IS NO CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY IN THIS BEHALF DURING ASSESSMENT. THE LEVEL OF ENQU IRY IN ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 487/JP/2013 M/S. A LLORA SERVICE STATION VS. CIT, ALWAR 9 PROCEEDINGS IS ALWAYS A DEBATABLE PROPOSITION DEPEN DING ON THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT CONCEPTUAL DIFFERE NCE ON THE MANNER OF INQUIRY CANNOT MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. EVEN ON MERITS, THERE IS NO LO SS TO THE REVENUE INASMUCH AS IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT TANKER RECEIPTS SURPLUS HAS BEEN SHOWN BY AKHK AND IS ASSESSED AT SAME RATE. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS ARE DULY DISCLOSED AND IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT AOS ORDER IS ERRONEOUS OR PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 2.11 APROPOS ISSUE OF SEC. 40(A)(IA), IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE TANKER WAS OWNED BY AKHK. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS F ROM BPCL ON ITS BEHALF. THERE IS NO PAYMENT OF ANY SUM AS HIRE CHARGES, THEREFORE, SEC 40(A)(IA) IS NOT APPLICABLE. ALTERNA TIVELY ALSO HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES (P) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) CASE HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT IF THE TAXES ARE PAID BY THE RECIPIENT IN THAT CASE THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD IN DEFAULT. 2.12 IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THA T THIS IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF INQUIRY, RECORD INDICATES THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHE D DETAILS IN THIS BEHALF ON A QUERY FROM AO. THE VIEW TAKEN BY AO IS A PLAUSIBLE AND JUSTIFIABLE VIEW. MERELY WRITING A SHORT ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE H ELD TO BE AN ERROR AS LONG AS THE RECORD REFLECTS APPLICATION OF MIND; WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF ITA NO. 487/JP/2013 M/S. A LLORA SERVICE STATION VS. CIT, ALWAR 10 LD. COUNSEL THAT THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED RULE ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE ORDER. THE PERCEPTION ABOUT THE MANNER OF INQUIRY VARIES FROM PERSON TO PERSON; IF THE VIEW TAKEN IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW THEN IT CANN OT BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS MERELY BECAUSE ANOTHER VIEW IS POSSIBLE. THUS WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AOS ORDER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF THE LD. CIT U/S 263 IS NOT TENABLE WHICH IS QUASHED. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05-12 -2014 SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) (R.P. TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED: 05 TH DEC, 2014 *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. M/S. ALLORA SERVICE STATION, JAIPUR 2. THE LD. CIT , ALWAR 3. THE LD. CIT BY ORDER 4..THE LD. DR 5.THE GUARD FILE (IT NO. 487/JP/2013) AR ITAT, JAIPUR