Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
6324514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
10-04-2013
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
12-12-2012
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
13-01-2011
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA.NO.63/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) M/S. UNITY DEVELOPERS, SHOP NO.5, MONTA ARCADE, PHALTAN 415 523, DIST. SATARA. .. APPELLANT PAN NO.AABFU 7324A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SATARA. .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K. SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 03-04-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-04-2013 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 29-12-2010 PASSED U/S.263 BY THE CIT-III, PUNE RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUC TION OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26-10 -2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,61,045/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COM PLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) ON 21-10-2009 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.3,66,050/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ITO WARD(4) SATARA SUBMITTED HIS P ROPOSAL U/S.263 DATED 30-01-2010 SEEKING REVISION OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.143(3) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE SINCE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRIES, A ND WITHOUT PROPERLY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE REASON GIV EN BY THE ASSESSING 2 OFFICER FOR INITIATING THE ACTION U/S.263 AS MENTIO NED IN THE BODY OF THE 263 ORDER READS AS UNDER : 1. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SATARA, SUBMITTE D HIS PROPOSAL U/S.263 DATED 30.7.2010 THROUGH THE ADDL. CIT, SATA RA RANGE, SEEKING REVISION OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.143(3) VIDE ORD ER DATED 21.10.2009. HE POINTED OUT THAT BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASON S, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. I. THE ASSESSEE FIRM HELD CURRENT ACCOUNT AND C APITAL ACCOUNTS OF PARTNERS. THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS HAD CREDIT BALANC ES ON WHICH INTEREST WAS PAID. THE CURRENT ACCOUNT HAD FOLLOWIN G DEBIT BALANCES IN THE NAMES OF THE PARTNERS: SANJAY S.MOHOLKAR RS. 10,49,933/- JAYED M .TARNBOLI RS.8,19,933/- PRAMOD S.NIMBALKAR RS.10,39,933/- NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED FROM THE PARTNERS ON THE DR . BALANCES IN THE CURRENT ACCOUNTS AGGREGATING TO RS.29,09,799/-. INT EREST WAS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED ON THESE DR. BALANCES AT @ 12% P.A. AT W HICH RATE INTEREST WAS. PAID TO THE PARTNERS. II. THE ASSESSEE RAISED LOAN OF RS.23,30,035/- FROM M/S.BHAIRAVNATH SAH. PATSANSTHA ON WHICH INTEREST OF RS.6,12,259/- WAS DEBITED. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX ON THIS INTERES T U/S.194A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED. THEREFORE., PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) WERE ATTRACTED TO T HIS PAYMENT AND THE EXPENDITURE WAS TO BE DISALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING PR OFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. THE AO, HOWEVER, IGNORED THESE PROVISIONS . III. THE ASSESSEE DEBITED LOSS OF RS.61,480/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PLOT AND THERE WERE OTHER DEBITS OF RS.5,43,700/- AND RS .2,75,575/-. THE COST OF PLOT WAS DEBITED IN THE ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, SAL E OF PLOT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CREDITED. PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PLOT ALSO WAS TO BE DEBITED IN THE YEAR OF PURCHASE. SALE CONSIDERATION OF PLOT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CREDITED TO THE APARTMENT ACCOUNT AND LOSS ON SALE OF PLOT WAS NOT TO BE ALLOWED SEPARATELY. TRANSACTION RESULTING INTO LOSS REQUIRE D VERIFICATION WHICH WAS NOT DONE AFFECTING ADVERSELY BUSINESS PROFIT OF THE A.Y. 2007-08. IV. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED FROM THE CASE RECORD T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 10.7.2009 CALLED FOR PARTICULARS INCLUDING .PARTICULARS OF EXPENSES, ADVANCES RECEIVED, SUNDRY ADVANCES GIVEN, SUNDRY CREDITORS, COPIES OF PURCHASE DEED OF LAND, PURCHASE AND SALE OF FLATS, GIVING NAMES AND ADDRESS OF PURCHASER, AGREEMENT PRICE, AREA OF FLAT, ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED AND SIMILAR PARTICULAR IN RESPECT OF ADVAN CE RECEIVED. THESE PARTICULARS ARE NOT FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT, HOWEVER, WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THESE ASPECTS AND WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ENQUIRIES. 3. THE LEARNED CIT ISSUED A LETTER DATED 11-10-2010 INFORMING THE ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSMENT O RDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO 3 FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REV ENUE. HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY NOT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER U/S.143(3) ON 21-10-2009 BE CANCELLED. REJECTING T HE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRIE S AND WITHOUT PROPERLY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT HE HELD THAT TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE ACCORDINGLY CANCELLED THE ASSESSME NT ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUT SET, SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT HAS INVOKED THE JURISDICTION U/S.263 ON THE BASIS OF A PROPOSAL SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REVISION OF THE A SSESSMENT MADE U/S.143(3). HE HAS NEITHER APPLIED HIS MIND NOR CA LLED FOR THE RECORDS AND THEREFORE HAS VIOLATED THE VERY BASIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MS.BINA INDRAKUMAR VS. ITO WARD 11(1)(1) MUMBAI REPORTED IN (2012) 24 TAXMANN.COM 15 (MUMBAI) HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER IDE NTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL HAS QUASHED THE 263 PROC EEDINGS. 4.1 SO FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE PAPER BOOK FILED SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED AND AFTE R GOING THROUGH VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER. THEREFORE, THE ORDER CANNOT BE S AID TO BE ERRONEOUS 4 ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE AS ALLEGED BY THE LEARNED CIT. REFERRING TO VARIOUS DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 THE TWIN CON DITIONS NAMELY (A) THAT THE ORDER MUST BE ERRONEOUS (B) THAT THE ORDER MUST BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE MUST BE SATISFIED. SINCE IN TH E INSTANT CASE BOTH THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT SATISFIED, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT UNDER SECTION 263 HAS TO BE CANCELLED. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT BECAUSE OF EXTREME WORK PRESSURE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE ON THE PART OF THE CIT TO VERIFY EACH AND EVERY ASSESSMENT FOLDER. THEREFORE, HE CAN INITIATE PROC EEDINGS U/S.263 ON THE BASIS OF PROPOSAL GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SE EKING REVISION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAV E ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED EARLIER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED HIS PROPOSAL U/S.263 TO THE CIT SEEKING REVISION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MA DE U/S.143(3). IN THE SAID PROPOSAL HE HAD CITED VARIOUS REASONS FOR HOLD ING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. BASED ON THE ABOVE THE LEARNED CIT ISSUED SHOW CAUS E NOTICE INFORMING THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THIS SHOWS THAT TH E LEARNED CIT HAS NOT AT ALL 5 APPLIED HIS MIND AND HE WAS CARRIED AWAY BY THE PRO POSAL GIVEN BY THE SUCCESSIVE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263(1) READ AS UNDER : THE COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECOR D OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSA RY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSM ENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT 7.1 IN THE INSTANT CASE THE CIT HAS NOT CALLED FOR AND EXAMINED THE RECORDS RATHER HE HAS ENDORSED THE PROPOSAL GIVEN B Y THE SUCCESSIVE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEKING REVISION OF THE ASSESSMEN T U/S.263 WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND. 8. SO FAR AS MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED, WE FIN D THE LEARNED CIT INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 ON THE GROUND THAT (A) NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED ON THE DEBIT BALA NCE IN THE NAME OF THE PARTNERS. (B) ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX FROM THE INTEREST PAID TO M/S. BHAIRAVANATH SAH. PATSANSTHA FOR WHICH THERE IS VIOLATION OF PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 194A R.W.S. 40(A)(IA). (C) LOSS ON SALE OF PLOT WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE. (D) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE VARIOUS DETA ILS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COM PLETED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THOSE ASPECTS WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ENQUIRIES. 8.1 WE FIND THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 20-10-20 09 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF SUNDRY C REDITORS, ADVANCES RECEIVED AGAINST FLAT AND SHOP AND COPY OF SALE DEE D OF VARIOUS PROJECTS. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO GIVEN THE DETAILS OF OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF ADVANCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAILS OF CASH CR EDIT LIMIT OF RS. 25 LAKHS OBTAINED FROM M/S. BHAIRAVANATH GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA 6 MARYADIT, THE DETAILS OF SALE AND PURCHASE EXCEEDIN G RS.1 LAKH, EXPENDITURE DETAILS ABOVE RS.1 LAKH, NON-APPLICABILITY OF PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) ETC. 8.2 WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFICATIO N OF THE PARTNERS CURRENT ACCOUNT BALANCE HAD DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 34,500/- AGAINST INTEREST DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS AT RS.6,12,259/- ON THE GROUND THAT PARTNERS HAVE WITHDRAWN AND DEPOSITED A MOUNTS FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE AND NON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THIS SHO WS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND ON ACCOUNT OF NON CHAR GING OF INTEREST ON THE DEBIT BALANCE IN THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF PARTNERS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD ALSO EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT DURING TH E COURSE OF 263 PROCEEDINGS THAT IT HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FU NDS AVAILABLE WITH IT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT FOR INVOKING THE JURISDICT ION U/S.263 ON THIS ISSUE SINCE IT IS NOTHING BUT A CHANGE OF OPINION BY THE SUCCESSOR AO. 8.3 SO FAR AS NON DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM INTEREST DE BITED ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN RAISED OF RS.23,30,035/- FROM M/S. BHAIRAVANAT H SAH. PATSANSTHA, WE FIND THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM AMOUNTS PAI D OR PAYABLE IS A HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE. IT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN VARIOUS JU DICIAL DECISIONS THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 CANNOT BE INVOKED ON DEBATABLE ISSUES. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 CAN BE INITIATED ON THIS ISSUE. 8.4 AS REGARDS THE LOSS RELATING TO SALE OF PLOT WE FIND FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND PURCHASED W AS DEBITED TO WORK-IN- PROGRESS AND WAS ALSO SOLD DURING THE SAME YEAR FO R THE SAME CONSIDERATION AND THE LOSS WAS ON ACCOUNT OF STAMP DUTY PAID AND OTHER EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH PLOT WHICH WAS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD WORK-IN-PROGRESS. 7 WE FIND AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER AND THEREFORE THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.263 ON TH IS ISSUE IS DUE TO CHANGE OF OPINION FOR WHICH THE SAME CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE OTHER GROUND ON WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED U/S.263 THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE PROPER ENQUIRIES, WE FIND FROM THE VARIOUS DET AILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S THAT IT HAS GIVEN ALL THE DETAILS AS ASKED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME AND THEREFORE THE NOTICE SO ISSUED U/S.263 IS DUE TO CHANGE OF OPINIO N FOR WHICH THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 8.5 FOR INVOKING THE JURISDICTION U/S.263 THE TWIN CONDITIONS NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND (II) THE ORDER IS PREJUD ICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE MUST BE SATISFIED AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 243 ITR 83. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PAPER BOOK WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS PASSED TH E ORDER AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND AND HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW W HICH IS PERMISSIBLE IN LAW ON ALL THE ISSUES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THEREFORE , THERE MAY BE SOME LEAKAGE OF REVENUE FOR WHICH THE ORDER MAY BE PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. 8.6 WE FIND THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MS. BINA INDRAKUMAR (SUPRA) WHILE QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.263 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 10. IN THE INSTANT CASE WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT, DURING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO HAD ALREADY MADE THE ENQUIRY, AS HE THOUGHT FIT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN NEVER B E HELD THAT THERE WAS A LACK OF ENQUIRY BY THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT. IT CAN ALSO NOT BE HELD THAT THE ENQUIRY WAS INADEQUATE BECAUSE COMPLETE DETAILS WERE PROVIDED TO 8 THE AO, THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO HOLD THAT THIS WAS A CLEAR CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION, THAT TOO, ON A PROPOSAL SENT BY THE AO, ME ANING WHEREBY IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF SUO MOTO ACTION OF THE CIT. THIS IS IMP ORTANT TO NOTE BECAUSE THE WORDS USED IN SECTION 263 ARE, 'HE MAY'. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITSELF SPECIFIES THAT THE PROPOSAL W AS RECEIVED FROM THE AO, WHICH MEANS, THAT THE CIT HIMSELF DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND. BOTH THESE PROPOSITIONS WERE DEALT WITH BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREI N (IN THE HEAD NOTES), THE APEX COURT HELD, 'A BARE READING OF SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PREREQUISITE FOR THE, EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER SUO MOTU UNDER IT, IS THAT THE ORD ER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TW IN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUG HT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE STS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT - IF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT E RRONEOUS BUT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE - RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT'. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FA CTS EMERGING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE ACTION TO IN VOKE REVISION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 IS BAD IN LAW AND CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED. 9. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CAS E AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIO NS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME HAS PASSED THE ORDER AFTER DUE AP PLICATION OF MIND, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ACTION TA KEN BY THE LD.CIT U/S.263 IS BAD IN LAW AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE ACCORDINGLY SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 10 TH OF APRIL, 2013. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SATISH PUNE, DATED THE 10 TH APRIL 2013. 9 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT-III, PUNE 4. THE DR B BENCH, PUNE. 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL, PUNE.
