M/S SUKHKARTA DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS, Nagpur V. PRINCIPAL C.I.T-3, Nagpur

ITA 596/NAG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4492 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K BARAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ MORIYANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 133A; 80IB; 263; 12; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA N O S . 596 & 597 /NAG. / 2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2011 - 12 & 2012 - 13 ) M/S. SUKHKARTA DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS SHREE TOWER, SOMALWAR, WARDHA ROAD, NAGPUR - 440012 PAN ABCFS 9605 C APPELLANT V/S PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX OFFICER (HQRS)(TECH) OFFICE O FTHE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 3, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, NAGPUR - 440 001 .... RESPONDENT A PPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ MORIYANI RE SPONDENT BY : SHRI R. K. BARAL DATE OF HEARING 09.05.2018 DATE OF ORDER 01.08 .2018 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA , A .M. TH E S E APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3, NAGPUR PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2011 - 12 & 2012 - 13 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE COMMON GROUND S OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1) AS REQUESTED THERE IS A CONDONATIO N OF DELAY OF 195 DAYS. THE SAME MAY BE CONDONED. REQUEST APPLICATION IS ENCLOSED. 2) THE ORDER OF THE A.O. WAS CORRECT. THE HONBLE PR. CIT WRONGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER. THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND INVALID. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PR. CIT 3 U/S. 263 MAY PLEASE BE SET ASIDE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IN THIS CASE IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 196 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. FOR THE REASONABLE CAUSE ATTRIBUTED FOR THE DELAY IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE 2 ITA NO. 596/NAG./2016 M/S. SUKHKARTA DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS PART NER LOOKING AFTER THE AFFAIRS SHR I SHAI LENDRA KISHORE JAISWAL W AS INDISPOSED . IN THIS REGARD, A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED CERTIFYING THAT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM HYPERTENSION AND BRONC HIA L ASTHMA. 4. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WE AGREE THAT THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE COUNSEL, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 5. IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 IN THI S CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 BELATEDLY ON 25.12.2011 WHICH WAS DUE TO BE FILED ON 30.09.2011. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, THE BELATED RETURN WAS FILED ON 16.03.2013 WHICH WAS DUE TO BE FILED ON 30.09.2012. IN THESE RETURNS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED 80 - IB DEDUCTIONS AT RS.1,57,04,685/ - AND RS.51,57,714/ - RESPECTIVELY FOR THE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80 - IB. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB SHALL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS THE RETURN IS FURNISHED ON DUE DATE SPECIFIED U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX D IRECTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE LIMITED ISSUE, I.E., RELATING TO ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80 - IB OF THE ACT AFTER GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ALSO NOTED THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE 3 ITA NO. 596/NAG./2016 M/S. SUKHKARTA DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS ASSESSEE. THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,55,00,000/ - FOR TAXATION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. IN THIS REGARD, HE REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THE QUE RY FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER : ' THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 1.55 LAKH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. AS PER THE DECLARATION, THE ASSESSEE CAN GIVE THE REMUNERATION OUT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME TO ITS PARTNE RS. DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN RS. 90 LAKH AS REMUNERATION TO ITS THREE PARTNERS, SHAILENDRA JAISWAL, VIJAY SHELKE, AND SURESH DOIFODE EACH OFRS. 30 LAKHS. THE SAID REMUNERATION DULY REFLECTED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF PARTNERS. COPY OF SAME IS ENCLOSED. THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB, BUT TO HONOR THE DECLARATION, THE ASSESSEE HEREBY AGREED TO PAY TAXES ON BALANCE AMOUNT OFRS. 65 LAKHS.' 7. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NOTED THAT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.03.2011 WHICH FORM S PART OF THE AUDIT REPORT, REVEALS THE FOLLOWING: BY PROFIT (B/F. FROM P & L A/C.) 2,70,56,676 (CR.) TO PARTNERS (INTT.) 20,90,874 (DR) TO PARTNERS SALARY 90,00,000 (DR) TO PARTNERS SHARE IN PROFIT 1,59,65,802 (DR) 2,70,56,676 (DR) 2,70,56,676 (CR) FROM THE ABOVE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OBSERVED THAT THE FIRM HAS ALREADY CLAIMED REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS AMOUNTING TO RS.90 LACS IN PROFIT AND LOSS APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT AND ARRIVED AT THE NET PROFIT OF RS.1,59,65,802/ - WHICH TALLIES WITH THE NET PROFIT. HENCE, IN HIS DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE ALLOWANCE TO REMUNERATION TWICE. 8. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE 4 ITA NO. 596/NAG./2016 M/S. SUKHKARTA DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS HENCE THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO EXERCISE THE JURISDIC TION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL CASE LAWS FROM THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN WHICH IT WAS EXPOUNDED THAT THE EXTENDED TIME PERIOD PRESCRIBED U/S. 139(4) OF THE ACT SHOULD ALSO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT I N THIS REGARD FOR CONSIDERING COMPLIANCE OF PROVISION U/S. 139(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1 ITO VS. M/S. UMA DEVELOPERS (IN ITA NO. 7718/MUM/2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.08.2016) 2 CIT VS. KULU VALLEY TRANSPORT CO. P. LTD. [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC) 3 TRUSTEES OF TULSIDAS GOPALJI CHARITABLE & CHALESHWAR TEMPLE TRUST VS. CIT [1994] 207 ITR 368 (BOM) 4 ITO VS. YASH DEVELOPERS [2014] 57 (II) ITCL 171 5 CIT VS. M/S. U NITECH LTD. (IN ITA NO. 239/2018 & CM NO. 6678/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.02.2015)(DELHI) 6 CIT VS. GABRIAL INDIA LTD. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (BOM - HC) 7 CIT VS. ARVIND JEWELLERS [2003] 259 ITR 502 (GUJ - HC) 8 CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. [2004] 268 ITR 128 (P&H) 9 SMT. LILA CHOUDHARY VS. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 226 (GAUHATI) 10 CIT VS. JAGRITI AGGARWAL [2011] 339 ITR 610 (P & H) 10. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . 11. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT SECTION 80AC PROVIDES THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB SHALL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS THE RETURN I S FURNISHED IN TIME SPECIFIED U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD THE OCCASION TO DELIBERATE UP ON THE ISSUE OF COMPLIANCE OF TIME SPECIFIED U/S. 139(1) IN THE CASE OF TRUSTEES OF TULSIDAS GOPALJI CHARITABLE & CHALESHWAR TEMPLE TRUST (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS ALSO DRAWN SUPPORT FROM THE HONBLE APEX COURT 5 ITA NO. 596/NAG./2016 M/S. SUKHKARTA DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF KULU VALLEY TRANSPORT CO. P. LTD . (SUPRA). THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS EXPOUNDED AS UNDER: 5. ON A CAREFUL READING OF SECTION 139 WE ARE OF THE CLEAR OPINION THAT SUB SECTIONS (1) AND (4) OF SECTION 139 HAVE TO BE READ TOGETHER AND ON SUCH A READING, THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT A RETURN MADE WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN SUB - SECTION (4) HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN MADE WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUB - SECTION (1) OR SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 139. IN OTHER WORDS, IF A RETURN IS FILED WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 AND THE OPTION CONTEMPLATED BY THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 11(1) IS EXERCISED IN WRITING ALONG WITH SUCH RETURN, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 11(1) WOU LD STAND SATISFIED. 6. SIMILAR CONTROVERSY CAME UP BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V . KULU VALLEY TRANSPORT CO. (P.) LTD. [1970 ] 77 ITR 518 . IN THAT CASE, A DISPUTE AROSE IN REGARD TO THE RIGHT OF AN ASSESSEE TO GET THE BENEFIT OF LOSSES BEING SET OFF AND CARRIED FORWARD UNDER SECTION 24(2) OF THE INDIAN INCOME - TAX ACT, 1922 WHICH PROVIDED THAT IN ORDER TO GET THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 24(2), THE ASSESSEE MUST SUBMIT HIS LOSS RETURN WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED BY SECTION 22(1) [CORRESPONDING TO SECTION 139(1) OF 1961 ACT]. SECTION 22(3) OF THE 1922 ACT [CORRESPONDING TO SECTION 139(4) OF 1961 ACT] ENABLED THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD NOT FURNISHED HIS RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OR SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 22 OF THE ACT TO FURNISH IT AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS RETURN WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN SECTION 22(3). IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED AS A VALID RETURN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 22A OF THE ACT TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO CARRY FORWARD THE LOSSES. THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT APPROVE THIS INTERPRETATION AND HELD THAT SECTION 22(1) MUST BE READ WITH SUB SECTION 22(3) FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH THE RE TURN HAS TO BE SUBMITTED. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT SECTION 22(3) WAS MERELY A PROVISO TO SECTION 22(1). ON THE AFORESAID REASONING, IT WAS HELD THAT A RETURN OF INCOME, PROFITS OR GAINS OR OF A BUSINESS MUST BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN MADE WITHIN THE TIME PR ESCRIBED IF IT IS MADE WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN SECTION 22(3). IN OTHER WORDS, IF SECTION 22(3) IS COMPLIED WITH, SECTION 22(1) MUST ALSO BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. IF COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN MADE WITH THE LATTER PROVISION, THE REQUIREMENT OF SECT ION 22(2A) WOULD STAND SATISFIED. 7. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 22(1), 22(2) AND 22(3) ARE IDENTICAL TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTIONS (1), (2) AND (4) OF SECTION 139. ON A CAREFUL COMPARISON OF THE TWO SETS OF PROVISIONS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE IS NO DI FFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN KULU VALLEY TRANSPORT CO. (P.) LTD'S CASE ( SUPRA ) , THEREFORE, SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE PRESENT CASE. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION, THE OPTION EXERCISED BY THE ASSESSEE U NDER THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 11(1) BEFORE THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 HAS TO BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN EXERCISED BEFORE THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUBSECTION (1) OR SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 139 AND IN THAT EVENT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 11. 8. IN THE RESULT, WE ANSWER THE QUESTION REFERRED TO US IN THE NEGATIVE, I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 6 ITA NO. 596/NAG./2016 M/S. SUKHKARTA DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS 12. FROM THE ABOVE EXPOSITION FROM THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT WHICH DULY HAS THE MANDATE FROM THE HONBLE APEX COURT, IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE SUBMISSION OF RETURN WITHIN TIME AS SPECIFIED UNDER SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 HAS TO BE TAKEN AS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE FOR THE PROVISION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AS IT WAS EXPOUNDED THAT THE SUB SECTION (1) AND SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 HAVE TO BE READ TOGETHER AND, HENCE, IT IS THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION THAT A RETURN MADE WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN SUB SECTION (4) HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN MADE WITHI N THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUB SECTION (1) OF THE ACT. 13. ON THE TOUCH STONE OF THE ABOVE SAID EXPOSITION, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER ON GRANTING THE ASSESSEE THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE RETURNS WERE FILED BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT FOR SUB SECTION 139(4). 14. EVEN OTHERWISE, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) HAS EXPOUNDED THAT WHEN THERE ARE T WO VIEWS POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE VIEWS WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DOES NOT AGREE , THE SAME WILL NOT GIVE RISE TO GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THE POWER TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HERE WE FIND THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID DECISION, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FORMED A VIEW THAT THE ASSE SSEE DESERVES DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB, HAVING COMPLIED WITH THE OVERALL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CAN L EGALLY ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S. 263 IF HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7 ITA NO. 596/NAG./2016 M/S. SUKHKARTA DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS 15. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT, WE QUASH THE DIRECTION OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO EXAMINE THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB FOR BOTH THE YEARS. 16. NOW WE COME TO THE ISSUE OF THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX S DIRECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DOUBLE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PARTNERS SALARY. 17. IN THIS REGARD , WE NOTE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS NOTED THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY ACTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, AND FOR ASSESSMENT 2011 - 12, THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO DECLARE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 1.55 CRORES. HOWEVER , THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NOTED THAT ON ENQUIRY FROM ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT ASSESSEE COMES UNDER THE AMBIT OF EXEMPT ION /DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 80 IB. STILL ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED RS.65 LAC S FOR TAXATION AFTER SUBMITTING THAT ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO PAY RS. 90 LACS AS SALARY TO PARTNER. THIS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW , THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTION OVER THIS ACT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY NOTING THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CLAIMED REMUNERATION TO PARTNER. IN THIS REGARD , WE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS OVERLOOKED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U /S. 80IB. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER , THE ENTIRE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS NOT LIABLE FOR TAXATION. STILL THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED RS. 65 LACS FOR TAXATION WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED , WHICH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS SO AS TO BE PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. FURTHERMORE WE NOTE THAT IN THIS REGARD EXCEPT FOR THE STATEMENT ON SURVEY THERE WAS NO CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL SUPPORTING THE ADDITION OF RS.1.55 CRORES. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF S KADER KHAN (25 TAXMANN.COM 413) DEHORSE ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL ADDITION ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF A STATEMENT OBTAINED UNDER SURVEY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 8 ITA NO. 596/NAG./2016 M/S. SUKHKARTA DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS I N THE BACKGROUND OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACCEPTANCE OF RS.6 5 LAKH OFFER ED FOR TAXATION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS SO TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE INASMUCH AS THE ENTIRE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED WAS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION U /S.80 IB AND THE STATEMENT OBTAINED ON SURVEY WAS D EHORSE ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL. 18. ACCORDINGLY IN THIS WAY OF THE MATTER , WE QUASH THE ENTIRE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PASSED U /S. 263 OF THE I N COME TAX A CT. 19. IN THE RESULT , THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED . O RDER PRONOUNCED BY LISTING THE RESULT ON THE NOTICE BOARD OF THE BENCH UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. SD/ - RAM LAL NEGI JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 01.08.2018 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, NAGPUR CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, NAGPUR ; (6) GUARD FILE . // TRUE COPY // BY ORDER ROSHANI , SR. PS ( SR. P.S. / P.S. ) ITAT