Kaushikbhai Prahaladbhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Pr. CIT-7, Ahmedabad

ITA 667/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5316 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SHARMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 139(1); 13; 263

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.667/AHD/2019 / ASSTT.YEAR : 2014-15 KAUSHIKBHAI P. PATEL 43, GIDC ESTATE NARODA,AHMEDABAD. PAN : AAVPP 9887 F VS. PR.COMMISSIONER OF IT - 7 AHMEDABAD. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHESH CHHAJED, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. SHARMA, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 11/05/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13/05/2021 !'/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF THE LD.PR.CIT-7, AHMEDABAD DATED 30.3.2019 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2014-15 . 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.PR .CIT HAS ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD.PR.CIT HAS ERRED IN DIRE CTING THE AO TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.11.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1 0,71,190/-. THE ITA NO.667/AHD/2019 2 CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSE SSMENT AND ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 27.12.2016 WHEREBY I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.11,96,180/-. THE LD. COMMISSIONER PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE BECAUSE ACCORDING TO HIM, THE LD.AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED A PROPER INQUIRY WITH REGARD TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, HE ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 263 OF THE ACT; COPY OF SUCH NOTICE IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO.6 OF TH E PAPER BOOK, WHICH READS AS UNDER: PR.CIT-7/ABD/TECH/REVISIONU/S.263/KPP/2018-19 DATE: 1 4/03/2019 TO, SHRI KAUSHIKBHAI P. PATEL, 43, GIDC STATE, NARODA, AHMEDABAD. PAN: AAAAVPP9887F SUB; SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX AXT, 1961 FOR THE AY. 2014-15-REG. REF: PROPOSAL U/S 563 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SUBMITTED BY THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(2),AHMEDABAD VIDE LETTER NO.ITO/WARD-7(2)(2)/263/KPP/2018-19 DATED 30/07/2018 ***** KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE. ON PERUSAL OF YOUR CASE RECORDS, IT IS OBSERVED THA T RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS FILED U /S 139(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 24/ 11/2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.10,71,190/-. UPON SCRUTINY U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE THEN AO I.E. DCIT, CENTRAL-1(4), AHMEDABAD INTER-ALIA ADDED AN AM OUNT OF RS.1,24,993/- BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF INTEREST E XPENDITURE. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT YOU HAVE INCURRE D THE EXPENDITURE IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OF RS.21,46,500/- AND A QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ALSO ISSUED O N 1/2016 BY THE ITA NO.667/AHD/2019 3 A.O. IN THIS REGARD, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT YOU H AD FAILED TO RESPOND SAME, THE A.O. (IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961) ALLOWED THIS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.21,46 ,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES WITHOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRIE S OR VERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT APPEARS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A. O., U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 SEEMS TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. YOU ARE THEREFORE REQUESTE D TO PLEASE SHOW- CAUSE AS TO WHY NOT AN ORDER ENHANCING THE INCOME O R SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED U/D 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 27/12/2016 SHOULD BE PASSED IN YOUR CASE IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED TO ME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. FOR THIS PURPOSE, YOU MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED EITHER IN PERSON OR T HROUGH YOUR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON 19/03/2019-AT 03,30 P.M; IN MY OFFICE AT THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADDRESS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO APPEAR EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH YOUR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, YOU MAY MAKE YOUR SUBMISSION IN WRITING SO AS TO REACH THE UNDERSIGNE D ON OR BEFORE THE APPOINTMENT DATE, WHICH SHALL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. SD/- (RAJKUMAR LACHHIRAMAKA PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7, AHMEDABAD 4. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. COPY HAS BEEN PLACED ON PAGE NO.8 TO 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD.COMMISSIONER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, AND HE SET ASIDE THE A SSESSMENT ORDER. BRIEF FINDING RECORDED BY HIM IN PARA-5 & 6 READS A S UNDER: 5. DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING ON 29/03/2019 (FOR 263 PROCEEDINGS), THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPIES OF AGREEMENTS AND ALSO THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO DIFFERENT PERSONS C ONCERNING THIS EXPENDITURE OF RS.21,46,5007-. SINCE THESE DETAILS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE A.O. IS SET ASIDE TO THIS LIMITED ISSUE AND HE IS DIRECTED TO MAKE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH EXPENSES. IN THIS REGARD, THE A .O. MAY ALSO SUMMON THESE PERSONS (WHO HAVE ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED THE PAYM ENT) AND ASK THEM TO PRODUCE EVIDENCES AS TO THEIR LIVING IN THAT PROPER TY AND ALSO AS TO WHY DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF THE SAME FAMILY HAVE BEEN PAID COMPENSATION BY THE ITA NO.667/AHD/2019 4 ASSESSEE. THE A.O. WILL ALSO INQUIRE IF RECIPIENTS HAVE OFFERED SUCH RECEIPTS AS INCOME IN THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME. 6. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MA TTER, THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF A.O. W ITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH, IN LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION ABOVE AND FINALIZE THE ASSESSMENT AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE AO SHALL GRANT ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT AS PER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. WHILE IMPUGNING ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER, TH E LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO .4 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREBY COPY OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN PLACED. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LAND DEVELO PMENT EXPENDITURE AT RS.21,46,500/-. FURTHER HE HAS SHOWN THE LAND P URCHASE AT ACHER AT RS.67,80,381/-. ON THE ASSET ASIDE IN THE CLOSING STOCK, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN WORK-IN-PROGRESS ACHER LAND AT RS.89,26,8 81/-. THIS AMOUNT IS TOTAL OF LAND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS LAND PURCHASE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY E XPENDITURE IN THE P&L ACCOUNT IN THE SHAPE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT EXPEND ITURE. THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE. THIS PLEA HAS SPECIFICALLY BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AM IRA FOODS P.LTD. VS. PR.CIT, 63 ITR (TRI) 355 (DEL). ON THE STRENGT H OF THIS DECISION, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE LD.PR.COMMISSIONER THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT C LAIMED ANY DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES DURING THE YEAR, THE QUESTION OF UNDER ASSESSMENT OR LOSS OF REVENUE DOES NOT ARISE. SIM ILARLY, HE PUT RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD., 203 ITR 108. O N THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE PR.COMMI SSIONER. ITA NO.667/AHD/2019 5 6. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS DIRECT BEARING ON THE CONTROVERSY, THEREFORE, IT IS PERTIN ENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THIS SECTION. IT READS AS UNDER: 263(1) THE COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE T HE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOU S IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, HE M AY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MA KING 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 ASSES SMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASS ESSMENT. [EXPLANATION.- FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HER EBY DECLARED THAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION ,- (A) AN ORDER PASSED ON OR BEFORE OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 1988 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL INCLUDE- (I) AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED B Y THE JOINT COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 144A; (II) AN ORDER MADE BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IN EXE RCISE OF THE POWERS OR IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTION S OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER CONFERRED ON, OR ASSIGNED TO, HIM UNDER THE ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD OR BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR COMMISSIONER AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD IN THIS BEHALF UNDER SECTION 120; (B) RECORD SHALL INCLUDE AND SHALL BE DEEMED ALWAY S TO HAVE INCLUDED ALL RECORDS RELATING TO ANY PROCEEDING UND ER THIS ACT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE COMMISSIONER; (C) WHERE ANY ORDER REFERRED TO IN THIS SUB-SECTION AND PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN THE SUBJEC T MATTER OF ANY APPEAL FILED ON OR BEFORE OR AFTER TH E 1 ST DAY ITA NO.667/AHD/2019 6 OF JUNE, 1988, THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL EXTEND AND SHALL BE DEEMED A LWAYS TO HAVE EXTENDED TO SUCH MATTERS AS HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN SUCH APPEAL. (2) NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AF TER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL Y EAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PASSED. (3) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTI ON (2), AN ORDER IN REVISION UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE PASSED AT ANY TIME IN THE CASE OF AN ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE OF, OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO, ANY FINDING O R DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NA TIONAL TAX TRIBUNAL, THE HIGH COURT OR THE SUPREME COURT. EXPLANATION.- IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (2), THE TIME TAKEN IN GIVI NG AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO BE REHEARD UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 129 AND ANY PERIOD DURING WHICH ANY PROC EEDING UNDER THIS SECTION IS STAYED BY AN ORDER OR INJUNCT ION OF ANY COURT SHALL BE EXCLUDED. 7. ON A BARE PERUSAL OF THE SUB SECTION-1 WOULD REV EAL THAT POWERS OF REVISION GRANTED BY SECTION 263 TO THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER HAVE FOUR COMPARTMENTS. IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT. FOR CALLING OF THE RECORD AND EXAMINATION, THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO SHOW ANY REASON. IT IS A PART O F HIS ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND EXAMINE THEM. T HE SECOND FEATURE WOULD COME WHEN HE WILL JUDGE AN ORDER PASSED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER ON CULMINATION OF ANY PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE PENDENCY OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD AND OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE FORMED AN OPINI ON THAT SUCH AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTERESTS OF THE ITA NO.667/AHD/2019 7 REVENUE. BY THIS STAGE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS NOT REQUIRED THE ASSISTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE THIRD ST AGE WOULD COME. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WOULD ISSUE A SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E POINTING OUT THE REASONS FOR THE FORMATION OF HIS BELIEF THAT AC TION U/S 263 IS REQUIRED ON A PARTICULAR ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. AT THIS STAGE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE GIVEN. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY AS HE MAY DE EM FIT. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, HE WILL PASS THE ORDER. THIS IS THE 4TH COMPARTMENT OF THIS SECTION. THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER MAY ANNUL THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE MAY ENHANCE THE ASSESSED INCOME BY MODIFYING THE ORDER. AT THIS STAGE, BEFOR E CONSIDERING THE MULTI-FOLD CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES, WE DEEM IT PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL TESTS PROPOUNDED IN VARIOUS JUDGMENTS RELEVANT FOR JUDGING THE ACTION OF THE CIT TAKEN U/ S 263. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MRS. KHATIZA S. OOMERBHOY VS. ITO, MUMB AI, 101 TTJ 1095, ANALYZED IN DETAIL VARIOUS AUTHORITATIVE PRON OUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES 243 ITR 83 AND HAS PROPOUNDED TH E FOLLOWING BROADER PRINCIPLE TO JUDGE THE ACTION OF CIT TAKEN UNDER SECTION 263. (I) THE CIT MUST RECORD SATISFACTION THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. BOTH THE CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED. (II) SEC. 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE AO AND IT WAS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. (III) AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SUFFICE THE REQUIREMENT OF ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. ITA NO.667/AHD/2019 8 (IV) IF THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, SUCH ORDER WILL FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF ERRONEOU S ORDER. (V) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND IF THE AO HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE AO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE. IF CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW (VI) IF WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES ENQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINE THE INCOME, THE CIT, WHILE EXERCISING HIS POWER UNDER S 263 IS NOT PERMITTED TO SUBSTITUTE HI S ESTIMATE OF INCOME IN PLACE OF THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE AO. (VII) THE AO EXERCISES QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER VESTED IN HIS AND IF HE EXERCISES SUCH POWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION, SUCH CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CIT DOES NOT FEE STRATIFIED WITH THE CONCLUSION. (VIII) THE CIT, BEFORE EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION UNDER S . 263 MUST HAVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION. (IX) IF THE AO HAS MADE ENQUIRIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANATION BY A LETTER IN WRITING AND THE AO ALLOWS THE CLAIM ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E, THE DECISION OF THE AO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER HE DOES NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD. 8. ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 COULD BE TAKEN IF TWIN CONDITIONS VIZ. IMPUGNED ORDER SHOULD BE ERRONEOUS, AND IT SHOULD B E PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO.667/AHD/2019 9 NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE, THEN WHERE IS THE PREJ UDICE TO THE REVENUE; WHERE IS THE LOSS TO THE REVENUE. VERACIT Y OF SUCH EXPENDITURE TAKEN TO THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS COULD BE EXAMINED IN THE YEAR WHEN SALES WILL BE MADE. THIS PLEA HAS BEEN S PECIFICALLY RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT, BUT THE LD.CIT D ID NOT RECORD ANY FINDING, EVEN DID NOT CONSIDER IT. HENCE, ORDER OF THE LD.PR.COMMISISONER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE, IT DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND WE QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 TH MAY, 2021 AT AHMEDABAD. S D / - (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - (RAJPAL YADAV) VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/05/2021