ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI V. THE COTTON TEXTILES EXP. PROMOTION CONCIL, MUMBAI

ITA 6251/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6692 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MORYA PRATAP
• Assessee Lawyers: K K VAID
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Tangible material; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 12A; 148; 11; 139

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA U , JU DICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 6251 /MUM./ 2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003 04 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS 5 TH FLOOR, PAREL MUMBAI 400 012 .. / APPELLANT V/S THE COTTON TEXTILE EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL ENGINEERING CENTRE, 5 TH FLOOR 9, MATHEW ROAD, MUMBAI 400 004 .... / RESPONDENT ./ PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AAAT9241M / REVENUE BY : MR. MORYA PRATAP / ASSESSEE BY : MR. K.K. VAID / DATE OF HEARING 12.06.2014 / DATE OF ORDE R 19.06.2014 / ORDER , / PER AMIT SHUKLA , J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL HA S BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REV ENUE, CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30 TH JUNE 2011, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) I, MUMBAI , FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R/W 147 OF THE INCOME TAX THE COTTON TEXTILE EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL 2 ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 003 04 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT WHEN THE REASONS FOR REOPENING HAS BEEN RECORDED PROPERLY BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 14B. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT DEFICIT ARISES OUT OF EXPENDITURE OUT OF INCOME ON WHICH EXEMPTION HAS ALREADY BEEN CLAIMED AND ALLOWING OF SET OFF OF DEFICIT OF EA RLIER YEAR AGAINST THE INCOME OF CURRENT YEAR WILL RESULT IN DOUBLE DEDUCTION NWHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ESCORTS LTD. V/S UNION OF INDIA, 199 ITR 43 AND J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD. V/S UNION OF INDIA, (1992) 65 TAXMA N 40 . 2 . FACTS IN BRIEF : THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE TRUST, WHICH HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A AND HAS BEEN CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27 TH NOVEMBER 2003, DECLARING N IL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11, ALONG WITH THE AUDIT REPORT IN THE FORM 10B, INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND OTHER ANNEXURES. THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY WHEREIN VARIOUS DETAILS AND EXPLANATION WA S SOUGHT FROM THE ASSESSEE. AFTER EXAMINING THE ENTIRE DETAILS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3), ON A TAXABLE INCOME OF ` 44,16,910, VIDE ORDER DATED 13 TH MARCH 2006. THEREAFTER, ON EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF MORE THAN FOUR YEARS, SUCH AN AS SESSMENT HAS BEEN RE OPENED UNDER SECTION 147 , VIDE THE COTTON TEXTILE EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL 3 NOTICE DATED 24 TH MARCH 2010, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148. THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR RE OPENING THE CASE ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS RECORDED . THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FINALIZED B Y THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN BASED UPON THE ASSESSEES CLAIM HE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION OF ` 14,39,483. THE DEPRECIATION IS CLAIMED AND ALLOWED ON THE ASSET, THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF WHICH WAS ALLOWED AS EXEMPTION ON ACCOUNT OF APPLICATION OF INCOME U/S 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THIS ACT OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO CLAIM OF DOUBLE DEDUCTION IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE LAW LAID BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. V/S UOI 199 ITR (43). FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS OFFERED ` 51,29,452 AS DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 11(3) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS OBJECT OF THE TRUST FOR THE YEAR AS APPLICATION INSTEAD OF TREATING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF AS DEEMED INCOME. I HAVE THEREF ORE, REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE CAUSE OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF THE MATERIAL FACTS AS FAR AS BOTH THE ABOVE ISSUES IS CONCERNED. THE SANCTION U/S 1511) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IS SOLICITED FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, FROM THE DIT (EXEMPTION) AS THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN FINALIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT , AND A PERIOD O F FOUR YEARS HAVE LAPSED FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3 . THE ASSESSEE, AFTER OBTAINING THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE OPENING THE CASE , VIDE LETTER DATED 27 TH DECEMBER 2010, MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, THE RE OPENING HAS BEEN DONE MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND THERE IS THE COTTON TEXTILE EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL 4 NO NEW FINDING OF FACT S OR MATERIAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ONLY REJECTED THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION ON THE LEGAL GROUNDS BUT HAD ALSO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS FOR ` 14,39,483, AND ALSO TAXING THE DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 11(3 ) OF THE ACT FOR ` 51,29,452. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R/W SECTION 147, AT AN INCOME OF ` 51,29,450, VIDE ORDER DATED 27 TH DECEMBER 2010. 4 . BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME OBJECTION S THAT THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS AND RE OPENING HAS BEEN DONE ON CHANGE OF OPINION . RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THAT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V/S K E LVI NATOR OF INDIA LTD. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) AND THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN GERMAN REMEDIES LTD. V/S D CIT , [2006] 285 ITR 26 (BOM.). THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN HIS CONCLUSION AGREED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE LD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ANY MATERIAL WHICH IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AND ALSO HELD THAT THE RE OPENING IS BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION BECAUSE THERE IS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS ANY ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. HE FURTHER HELD THAT INSOFAR AS THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS WHILE THE COTTON TEXTILE EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL 5 COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF T HE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S INSTITUTE OF BANKING, [ 2003 ] 264 ITR 110 (BOM.). THUS, HE HELD THAT THE RE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW. 5 . BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS DULY RECORDED THE REASONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND SO LONG AS THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 147 ARE FULFILLED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION TO RE OPEN THE CASE. THE PRIMA FACIE REASON S ENT ERTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT DEPRECIATION HAS WRONGLY BEEN ALLOWED WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ESCORTS LTD. V/S UNION OF INDIA, [ 1993 ] 199 ITR 43 (SC), WHICH ENVISAGES THAT NO DOUBLE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED ABOUT THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF THE MATERIAL FACTS REASONS RECORDED AND, THEREFORE, RE OPENING CANNOT BE HELD TO BE INVALID. 6 . WE HA VE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3), VIDE ORDER DATED 13 TH MARCH 2006. TH E RE OPENING HAS BEEN MADE AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE THE COTTON TEXTILE EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL 6 RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND, THEREFORE, THE VALIDITY OF RE OPENING HAS TO BE EXAMINED WITHIN THE AMBIT OF PROVISO TO SECTION 147. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 1 47, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN FOR RE OPENING THE CASE UNDER SECTION 147, WHEREIN THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OR 147, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. SUCH A BAR OF LIMITATION FOR RE OPENING T HE CASE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS, IN SUCH A CASE, IS RELAXED ONLY UNDER TWIN CONDITIONS, FIRSTLY, BY THE REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) / 148 AND, SECONDLY, FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. EXCEPT FOR THESE TWO CONDITIONS, THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3), CANNOT BE RE OPENED AFTER TH E EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS. 7 . NOW, ON A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED , IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SOUGHT TO RE OPEN THE CASE ON THE FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS VIZ. ( I ) THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE FINALISING THE ASSESSMENT, H AS ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION OF ` 14,39,483 , ON FIXED ASSETS EVEN WHEN THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SUCH FIXED ASSETS HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER THE COTTON TEXTILE EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL 7 SECTION 11. HENCE, T HIS LEADS TO CLAIM OF DOUBLE DEDUCTION WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ESCORT LTD. (SUPRA); AND ( II ) THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS OFFERED SUM OF ` 51,29,452, AS DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 11(3) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST IN THE YEAR AS O APPLICATIO NFROM THIS INCOME INSTEAD OF TREATING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS DEEMED INCOME. 8 . THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS REASONS FOR RE OPENING IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE EARLIER ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECI ATION AND ALSO ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE S FROM DEEMED INCOME . ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ALLEGES THAT THE CLAIM HAS WRONGLY BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN WHERE IS THE QUESTION OF THERE BEING A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISC LOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. MERE MAKING A B ALD ASSERTION IN THE REASONS RECORDED THAT THERE IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUFFICIENT , IT HAS TO BE DEMONSTRATED IN THE REASONS RECORDED ITSELF . T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO SET OUT THE FACTS AND THE MATERIAL WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE , WHICH HAD LEAD TO THE ESCAPEMENT OF THE INCOME. IT IS FROM THE REASONS RECORDED ALONE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CA N TO ASSUME THE THE COTTON TEXTILE EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL 8 JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147, FOR RE OPE NING THE CASE AND, THEREFORE, THE REASONS RECORDED SHOULD BE SUCH , THAT IT SHOULD PROVIDE A LIVE LINK NEXUS BETWEEN THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD AND THE INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, T HE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS, HAS BEEN COMPLETELY SET OUT IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FILED BY T H E ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME , WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN EXAMINE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS . THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY, RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ON THIS SCORE . IN ANY CASE, THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO DEPRECIATION IN THE COMPUTATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11, IS NOT A FALSE CLAIM BECAUSE THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN INSTITUTE OF BANK ING (SUPRA), HAS HELD THAT THE DEPRECIATION ON THE FIXED ASSETS HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLE S EVEN IF THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON THE SAME HAS BEEN HELD TO BE APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11. THUS, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM CANNOT BE HELD TO BE FALSE. SIMILARLY , R EGARDING THE SECOND ISSUE, FROM THE RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF ` 51,29,452 , AS DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 11(3) AND ALSO OFFERED THE AMOUNT FOR TAX. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO, WHAT IS THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COTTON TEXTILE EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL 9 9 . THUS, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE REASONS RECORDED IN HIS CASE CLOTHE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE JURISDICTION TO RE OPEN THE CASE UNDER SECTION 147 AND, THEREFORE, THE PROCE EDINGS INITIATED VIDE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, IS NULL AND VOID. 10 . BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE LATEST DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN LUPIN LTD. V/S ACIT, IN W.P. NO.1095 OF 2013, JUDGMENT DATED 7 TH MAY 2014, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OPINED AS UNDER: 8. IT IS TRUE THAT THE REASONS FOR INITIATING THE RE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DOES IN FACT STATE THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NE CESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, MERELY MAKING THIS BALD ASSERTION IS NOT ENOUGH. IT IS NOW WELL SETTLED THAT THE REASONS WHICH ARE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE OPENING THE ASSESSMENT, ARE THE ONLY REASONS WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED. NO SUBSTI TUTION OR DELETION IS PERMISSIBLE. NO ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE TO THOSE REASONS. NO INFERENCE CAN BE ALLOWED TO BE DRAWN BASED ON REASONS NOT RECORDED. THE REASONS RECORDED SHOULD BE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND SHOULD NOT SUFFER FROM ANY VEGUENESS. THE REASONS ARE THE MANIFESTATION OF THE MIND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, SHOULD BE SELF EXPLANATORY AND SHOULD NOT KEEP THE ASSESSING ASSESSEE GUESSING FOR THE REASONS. THE REASONS PROVIDE THE LINK BETWEEN THE CONCLUSION AND THE EVIDENCE. THE REASONS RECO RDED MUST BE BASED ON EVIDENCE SO THAT IN THE EVENT OF A CHALLENGE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE ALE TO JUSTIFY THE SAME BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HE MUST DISCLOSE IN THE REASONS AS TO WHICH FACT OR MATERIAL WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSES SEE FULLY AND TRULY NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR, SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE VITAL LINK BETWEEN THE REASONS AND THE EVIDENCE. THIS VITAL LINK IS THE SAFEGUARD AGAINST ARBITRARY RE OPENING OF THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT. 9. IN THE PRESENT CAS E, AS STATED EARLIER, THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO DETAILS AS TO WHICH FACT OR MATERIAL WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE PETITION THAT LEAD TO ITS INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT. THERE IS MERELY A BALD ASSERTION IN THE REASONS THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE THE COTTON TEXTILE EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL 10 ON THE PART OF THE PE TITIONER TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. IN OUR VIEW, THIS IS NOT ENOUGH. IT IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT THAT RESPONDENT NO.1 CLEARLY SETS OUT WHAT FACTS OR OTHER MATERIAL WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE PETITIONER THAT HAD LED TO THE INCOME ESCAPING ASS ESSMENT AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THIS IS ABSENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN OUR VIEW, THEREFORE, ON THIS GROUND ALONE, THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO SUCCEED IN THIS WRIT PETITION. 11 . THUS, I N VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REASONS GIVEN BY US AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN LUPIN LTD. (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THAT RE OPENING UNDER SECTION 147 IS BAD IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, W E AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT . THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE TREATED AS DISMISSED. 12 . 1 2 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 19 TH JUNE 2014 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 19 TH JUNE 2014 SD/ - . D. KARUNAKARA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 19 TH JUNE 2014 THE COTTON TEXTILE EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL 11 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) / THE ASSESSEE ; ( 2 ) / THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) ( ) / THE CIT(A ) ; ( 4 ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED ; ( 5 ) , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI ; ( 6 ) / GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY / BY ORDER . / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI