M/s Fortune Metaliks Limited, Ludhiana V. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

ITA 82/CHANDI/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7205 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP DAHIYA
• Keywords: Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Set aside; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 143(3); 56(2); 195; 251; 143(2); 207; 48; 72; 13; 119; 22; 20

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठच瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ ‘‘ए एए ए’, च瀃डीगढ़ च瀃डीगढ़च瀃डीगढ़ च瀃डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपील अपीलअपील अपील सं संसं सं./ ITA No. 82/CHD/2021 िनधा榁रण वष榁 िनधा榁रण वष榁िनधा榁रण वष榁 िनधा榁रण वष榁 / A.Y : 2016-17 M/s Fortune Metaliks Limited, Opp. Circuit House, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. बनाम VS The Pr.CIT (Central), Ludhiana. 瀡थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AABCF3202D अपीलाथ牸/Appellant 灹瀄यथ牸/Respondent िनधा榁琇रती क琉 ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज瀡व क琉 ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR Khanna, Addl. CIT तारीख/Date of Hearing : 11.01.2022 उदघोषणा क琉 तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2022 VIRTUAL HEARING आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 30.03.2021 pertaining to assessment year 2016-17 assessment year passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by PCIT (Central) Ludhiana is assailed. The order is challenged on the following grounds : “ 1. That the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Ludhiana, has erred in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and, thereby, setting aside the order as passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3), dated 30.12.2018 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 2 of 35 2. That the Pr. CIT has erred in holding that the assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 30.12.2018 was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3.That the Pr. CIT has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessment had been framed after due application of mind and thorough investigation and all the issues, on which the Pr. CIT has set aside the assessment, have been enquired into and dealt in by the concerned Assessment Officer. 4. That the Pr. CIT has grossly erred in invoking the explanation-2 to section 263, since the Ld. Assessing Officer has applied his mind fully to the issues taken by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 (1). 5. That the appellant company has already opted for VSV Scheme, 2020 and had filed Form 1 & 2 on 08.05.2020 before issuing the show cause notice u/s 263. 6. That no opportunity had been given by the Pr. CIT(Central), Ludhiana. 2. The ld. AR inviting attention to the impugned order submitted that the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) has been held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 2.1 Inviting attention to the impugned order it was submitted that the return was selected under CASS for completing scrutiny on specific issues for examination. This fact has been noticed by the AO in his order at page 1 as under : 1. Large value receipt or repayment of loans other than through banking channels. b. Large share premium received during the year (verify applicability of Section 56(2) (viib) or any other relevant section). 2.2 This fact, it was submitted, was in the knowledge of the ld. PCIT also as this fact has been referred to in the Show Cause Notice dated 23.11.2020 issued to the assessee. Though copy of the Show Cause Notice has been filed separately, ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 3 of 35 however it has been extracted in the impugned order itself in paras 4 to 8 and this fact is extracted at page 5. The specific reference is extracted hereunder : “ 2 ... ... ... Perusal of assessment record shows that the case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny for investigations of following issues: i) Large value receipt or repayment of loans other than through banking channels. ii) Large share premium received during the year (verify applicability of section 56(2)(vii) or any other relevant section). 2.3. Carrying us through the Show Cause Notice issued, it was submitted that it would show that the ld. PCIT was fully aware that these very issues had already been enquired into by the AO in the scrutiny proceedings. 2.4 Referring to the order passed, it was submitted that ld. PCIT without pointing out to any shortcoming or error in the order passed, again sat down to re-examine the very same facts all over again in 263 proceedings. No enquiry was made to show the error or mistake. The facts already available on record were re-appraised. It was his submission that the said action goes against the very settled principles of law justifying the invoking of the said provision. 2.5 Inviting attention to the assessment order, it was submitted that the assessment order had been passed after making due enquiries and with due application of mind and after a thorough investigation on all these issues supporting ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 4 of 35 evidences in the Paper Book were relied upon. The ld. PCIT, it was argued in the face of these facts on record without bringing anything new on record cannot be permitted to relook at the very same evidence again in the garb of 263 proceedings. This action, it was submitted, is in violation of the mandate of Section 263. 2.5 However, before addressing these issues and pressing for adjudication thereon, it was submitted that he would first want to address the background of how the ld. PCIT came to be looking at these issues and advance arguments to show how the powers have been exercised. For the said purposes, it was submitted, he would first want to argue ground Nos. 5 and 6. 3. Considering the ground No. 6, ld. AR was required to submit whether he would be satisfied by an opportunity of being heard. 4. The ld. AR opposed the said suggestion. Addressing ground No. 6, it was the vehement submission of the ld. AR that the said ground is to agitate the arbitrariness and the assessee does not seek to provide another opportunity to the PCIT to relook again beyond the statutory limitation available to him. The remand back of the issue was opposed. It was submitted that the assessee has raised the ground only to show how arbitrarily the powers have been exercised. ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 5 of 35 5. Referring to the facts, it was submitted that after the issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 23.11.2020, ld. PCIT noticed that no reply had been filed and without carrying out any enquiry at his own end or provide any further opportunity to the assessee, passed the order on 30.03.2021 on the very last day. The ld. PCIT, it was submitted, had more than 4 to 5 months time and despite this just sat with the very same information available to him which was always available on record and made no efforts whatsoever to point to any information which was seen to be incorrect by him after issuing Show Cause Notice to the assessee. 5.1 Referring to the Show Cause Notice, the arbitrariness, it was submitted, would be evident as only a few days time was given by the ld. PCIT to give reply. By way of the said ground, these facts on record are being highlighted to show the high handedness and arbitrary functioning of the authority. The said show cause notice, it was submitted, was uploaded by the ld. PCIT on the said date and was replied to by e-mail by the assessee also on the very same date. Copy of reply downloaded from the Revenue’s Website at page 71 and 77 was relied upon. The said reply, it was submitted, has a specific acknowledgement number; Document Id is given; Response given is reflected as “partial Response” to the Notice dated 23.11.2020. It was submitted that the said reply seeking time ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 6 of 35 on the ground that the assessee is settling under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' the addition made in the assessment order qua share capital premium received from M/s Advaith Investment Ltd. has remained ignored and the ld. PCIT ignoring the record incorrectly recorded at page 8 in para 3.1 of his order that no reply of the assessee has been received. The relevant extract reads as under : “3 . 1 I n r e s po n s e t o t he s h ow c a us e no t i c e , n e i t h e r a n y s u bm i s s i on w as r e c e iv e d n o r w a s a ny r e q u e s t f or a d j ou r n m e nt w as r e c e i v e d. ” 5.2 In the context of the same, specific attention was invited to Paper Book pages 71 and 72 wherein Paper Book page 71 is the document taken from the Revenue’s website correctly recording the date of the show cause notice issued to the assessee and page 72 in the specific reply forwarded by e-mail. The relevant extracts assailing the above finding are extracted hereunder : ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 7 of 35 5.3 Copy of the reply of the assessee sent by this email available at Paper Book page 72 is also reproduced hereunder : 5.4. Referring to the reply filed, it was submitted, the assessee had informed that the assessee has opted for 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and Form No. 1 and 2 had been filed on 21.8.2020. Reading from the reply, it was submitted that the assessee had pleaded that since the time available for reply was too short, hence without prejudice to the reply, written request was made seeking more time. In the said background, it was submitted that the ld. PCIT in para 3.1 incorrectly records that there was no response on behalf of the assessee. The information available in the Portal of the department itself and the reply placed on record is ignored. The sum total of ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 8 of 35 these facts was that the time given to the assessee for responding to the detailed queries raised was only 4 or 5 days. In letter dated 23.11.2020, it was re-iterated the assessee had sought atleast 15 to 20 days’ time and had also informed that the assessee had opted for 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Form No. 3, it was submitted, had been accepted. It was his submission that it is a matter of record that no further queries were raised by the ld. PCIT from the assessee and after sitting over the issue for a period of 4 to 5 months wherein on a reading of the impugned order it is evident that no enquiries were made from anywhere else also, the ld. PCIT exercising the powers u/s 263 proceeded to hold the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the very last date as per the Statute. The order passed without caring to grant any further time to the assessee knowing that 3 or 4 days time was not sufficient was assailed as arbitrary and mechanical. The order in the circumstances, it was submitted, deserves to be quashed as it is an unfair exercise of power. 5.5 It was submitted that in view of these facts and circumstances, the query that the issue be remanded back was opposed. It was his submission that the issue has been considered by the Apex Court, the Delhi High Court and various orders of the ITAT which issues and decisions he ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 9 of 35 would be referring to subsequently. Reading from the assessment order, the queries raised, the submissions made, additions made, the ld. AR reading then from the impugned order submitted that nothing new is seen. The very same facts, it was submitted, are once again appraised by the ld. PCIT and mechanically the assessment order is set aside. 5.6 For the sake of completeness, the arguments placed on record by way of the brief synopsis dated 31.08.2021 relied upon on behalf of the assessee by the ld. AR is extracted hereunder: 2. Firstly, we take the ground of appeal with regard to the not affording any opportunity by the Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana during the course of proceedings u/s 263 and for which, the facts are as under: a. The assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer by passing the detailed order, consisting of 10 pages vide order dated 30.12.2018 u/s 143(3). b. The time available with the Ld. Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana for passing the order u/s 263 was up to 31.03.2021. c. That the Ld. Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana has reproduced the notice u/s 263 dated 23.11.2020 in his order from page no. 4 to 8 and the notice was uploaded online as well as sent by the post vide no. 109 dated 23.11.2020 and the time given to file the reply was for 27.11.2020 i.e. only less than4 days were given because it takes time to appear the notice online and also by post the same cannot be received on the same date. d. The assessee responded to the notice u/s 263 by way of reply dated November 27, 2020, in which, it was submitted that there has been addition of Rs. 2,44,01,412/-, besides the other small addition of Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 2,58,262/- and the assessee had filed an appeal to the CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana and had opted for the VSV Scheme, 2020, which has been accepted by the same Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana vide order dated 30.01.2021. e. Also, in that application to PCIT, it was submitted that since the time allowed is very short, a time to 15 to 20 days may be granted for preparation of the reply and proof of sending the reply online have been placed at page no. 71 and the reply is at page no. 72 of the paper book. 3. However, the Ld. Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana without affording any other opportunity and totally ignoring the reply of the assessee in para 3.1 of his order has mentioned that since, as per the show-cause notice, neither any submission was received nor any request was made for adjournment and, he passed an order after 4 months and three days i.e. starting from 27.11.2020 to 30.03.2021. There was no communication to the assessee about any fresh date which the Ld. Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana ought to have given. Further, the assessee was under ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 10 of 35 bonafide belief since, he had opted for VSV Scheme, 2020 with the same Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana and, therefore, the proceedings must have been filed. Further, the Ld. Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana had passed the order u/s 263 after 4 months from the original date of hearing i.e. 27.11.2020 and had, therefore, sufficient time at his disposal for giving the reasonable opportunity and, therefore, non-giving of any opportunity and non-consideration of the reply of the assessee as stated above, amounts to "gross breach of principles of natural justice" and, therefore, it is prayed that the order u/s 263 may be quashed and on similar facts & circumstances, there is three member judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sona Building reported in 119 Taxman 0430 (2001) in which it has been held that the matter cannot be remanded back u/s 263 to the appropriate authority and, thus, liable to be quashed, the gist of the above judgment is as under: "Held: The notice was addressed on 21st May, 1993, from Delhi to the appellant in Jaipur fixing the hearing on 31st May, 1993. It was patent that it would take two or three days for that notice to be received in Jaipur even though dispatched b y speed post. In effect, therefore, the notice save five days to the addressees to respond, and two o f those days were Saturday and Sunday. Under s. 269UD the Appropriate Authority had two months to act commencing front the end o f the month in which the Form No. 37-1 was filed. The form was filed on 9th March, so that the Appropriate Authority had about two months and twenty days to take action. He did not take action until only one week from the last available date, and then he gave the appellant, in reality, only three days to respond. This was, plainly, most inadequate. Further, the notice alleged that the apparent consideration of the transaction between the appellant and the transferor was low based on the sale instance mentioned thereon. To be able adequately to respond to that allegation, it was necessary for the appellant to ascertain what the merits and demerits were o f that property which had been auctioned, and to know what were the terms and conditions o f the auction. No copy of a n y document relating to the sale instance was furnished by the Appropriate Authority to the appellant along with the notice, or at a n y time whatsoever. There is no doubt that on both counts there has been a gross breach of the principles of natural justice because adequate opportunity to meet the case made out in the notice was not given to the appellant. Having regard to the statutory limit within which the Appropriate Authority has to act and his failure to act in conformity with the principles of natural justice, the matter cannot be remanded to the Appropriate Authority. The order of the Appropriate Authority is quashed. —Son a Builders & Ors. vs. Union o f India & Am: (1998) 146 CTR (Raj) 712 set aside. Conclusion: Appropriate Authority having passed the order of purchase after giving only five days' time to the parties to respond to the notice and without furnishing copy of any document relating to the sale instance, there was gross breach of the principles of natural justice on both counts and the impugned order was liable to be quashed." The copy of the judgment is placed in the paper book-ll at pages 3 to 6. 4. The same is the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Tulsi Tracom Private Limited vs. CIT reported in 161 DTR 0148 (Del)in which the similar facts where the PCIT did not given adequate opportunity to the assessee in the notice issued u/s 263 and it was held as under: "Thus, there was an outer limit in the statue u/s 263 which was 31.03.2013- since no useful purpose would be served in giving the opportunity to the appellant of being heard to this stage, question answered in favor of the assessee - the assessee appeal is allowed. The copy of the judgment placed in the paper book-llat page no. 7 to 13. ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 11 of 35 5. The relevant para no. 23 of the said judgment is as under and which is being relied upon: "This Court has also examined the question as to whether an opportunity of hearing could now be afforded to the Appellant. However, Section 263(2) of the Act is a clear bar for any order being passed pursuant to a notice under Section 263 of the Act, after expiry o f two years from the end o f the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. Thus, there is an outer limited in the statue under Section 263 which, in the present case, is 31 s ' March, 2013. Since, no useful purpose will be served in giving an opportunity to the Appellant of being heard at this stage, this Court answers question No. 1 in the negative i.e. in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue. " 6. Thus, on the ground of not allowing any reasonable opportunity to the assessee as per the binding judgments of the Hon'ble three judges of the Apex Court and the judgment of the Delhi High Court, the order as passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263, deserves to be quashed. 5.7 Arguments were also advanced on the merits of the order passed by the ld. PCIT. The assessee's submissions from the aforesaid synopsis is extracted hereunder : 7. It is submitted that there has been due application of mind by the Ld. Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings on the issues which have been taken by the Ld. PCIT in the notice u/s 263 and the notice u/s 143(2) have been issued on 09.08.2018 and the assessment had been completed by considering all the issues vide order dated 30.12.2018 and for which the facts are as under: a. The return has been filed on the basis audited books of accounts, which copy had been placed at page no. A to K of the paper book, along with the balance sheet with complete annexures at page no. 1 to 7 of the paper book. b. At page no. 8, there is a reply filed to the Assessing Officer wherein, details of the share capital along with their proofs have been filed and the said annexures is as under: i. Details of the persons, who have purchased the shares of the company along with their addresses and PAN number and the details of the share price and premium and the total amount have been given at page no. 9 of the paper book. ii. The copy of the account of "Smt. Shweta Goyal"in the books of the assessee along with her bank statement and evidence of filing the return have been placed at page no. 10 to 12 of the paper book. iii- The copy of the account of "ADVAITH Investment Ltd." in the books of the assessee along with the bank statement and evidence of filing the return have been placed at page no. 13 to 17 of the paper book. ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 12 of 35 iv. The copy of the account of "Interface Financial Security" in the books of the assessee along with the bank statement and evidence of filing the return by the company have been placed at page no. 18 to 21 of the paper book. v. The copy of the account of "Sun & Shine Worldwide Limited" in the books of the assessee along with the bank statement and evidence of filing the return have been placed at page no. 22 to 26 of the paper book. vi. The copy of the Form No. PAS-3 as filed under the Companies Act have been placed at page no. 28 to 34 of the paper book and relevant page is page no. 33 and 34 and also same form at page no. 35 to 40 of the paper book and relevant page is page no. 40. vii. The valuation report of shares of "M/s. Fortune Metaliks Ltd." have been filed at page no. 41 to 46 of the paper book which was filed before the AO. viii. The evidence of "Company Master Data" in respect, of "Sun & Shine Worldwide Limited" and Interface Financial Services Ltd. have been placed at page no. 67 & 68 of the paper book. Thus, all the evidences with regard to the genuineness of investment in the shares and the premium have been established before the Assessing Officer with documentary evidences which have been looked into and verified by the Assessing Officer and, thus no adverse view cannot be taken in this regard. 8. As regard the loan & advances taken from the parties, the said details have been submitted at page no. 47 of the paper book and it have also been stated that except M/s. Shweta Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., all cheques as obtained from the parties have not been encashed and the such entries were reversed in the "later years" and the evidence of the same was furnished with the Assessing Officer as under:- A. SHWETA AGRO FARMS PVT. Ltd. relevant pages are 48 to 55 which contain confirmed copy of account, bank statement, evidence of filing the return and, thus, the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties have been proved before the Assessing Officer and the AO has applied his mind. B. For the other parties, where the cheques were never encashed, the copies of accounts for the year under consideration and for the next year have been placed at pages 56 to 65 of the paper book and even it has been mentioned at page 47 of the paper book as per details filed with the AO. C. The confirmed copy of account of "ADVAITH" duly confirmed have been placed at page no. 66 of the paper book. 9. Another reply is at page no. 69 to 70 of the paper book. From the above, it is very clear that both with regard to the share application, unsecured loan, the AO had asked for certain information/details, which were submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and the AO has applied his mind to the same and, thus, it is not a case for lack of enquiry. The AO was fully conscious of the contribution for shares and its premium and valuation and also details of the "unsecured loans" which have been filed during the course of assessment proceedings, and, therefore, the contention of the Pr. ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 13 of 35 CIT (Central), Ludhiana, that the AO has not examined the share applicants and did not make any enquiries is not tenable. The findings of the Id. Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana, that the material furnished by the assessee is fabricated and is not real, is a far fence imagination and only on presumptions. 10. Similarly, in respect of unsecured loans, all such details have been submitted and except one party, the other cheques from the various parties have not been encashed and, therefore, the reliance by the Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana on the judgment of the "Sumiti Dyal" is not relevant, because when the documentary evidence on record, there cannot be any scope for presumption and surmises. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana has mentioned that enquiries and verifications should have been made and it is not a case that no enquiries have been conducted which is apparent from the above submissions. 11. From the details as stated above, it is absolutely clear that the AO has applied his mind to the material available and after examining the material and with due application of mind, he had formed a view and which cannot be interfered by the PCIT.Reliance is being placed in the judgment of Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in the case of Narian Singla, copy of the same have been placed at page no.24 to 38 of the paper book and relevant para 9 is being reproduced as under: "9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the queries raised by the Assessing officer and the replies thereto filed by the assessee it cannot be said that Assessing officer has not applied his mind to the issue of seized jewellery. The Assessing officer was fully aware of the matter, he has appraised the evidences filed by the assessee and then has formed a view to accept the same. Even the CIT in his show cause notice u/s 263 has reproduced the reply filed by the assessee. Certainly this is not a case of lack of enquiry / investigation. The fact that on appraisal of evidence and explanation filed by the assessee the Assessing officer forms an opinion which is not in consonance with the opinion of the CIT, it does not give him power to revise the order so made by the Assessing officer. This is certainly not a case of lack of enquiry. " 5.8 Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Indo German Fabs ITA No. 248 of 2012 dated 24.12.2014 (Copy filed at pages 39 to 40 of the Paper Book) and decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Copy filed at pages 46 to 48) for the proposition that where the issues have been looked into by the AO and application of mind by the AO is evident. The case cannot be visited by an order u/s 263 on the grounds of lack of enquiry or inadequate ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 14 of 35 enquiry. Similar view, it was submitted, has been held by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. 341 ITR 180 available at pages 49 to 62 of the Paper Book ) for the proposition that the revisionary authority without pointing out any flaw cannot direct the AO to go deeper into the matter. Reliance was also placed upon Loil Continental Foods Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT ITA No. 577/CHD/2019 (CHD-Tribunal) available at page 63 to 99 of the Paper Book ) wherein even where it is not borne out from the assessment order that the entire issues have been looked into on account of brevity of the order even in such circumstances it has been recognized that assessees have no control over the AO and cannot persuade the AO to draft the assessment order in a particular manner in its discussion of the AO how to pass the assessment order. Thus where on fact the issuance of questionnaire by the AO and replies received in response thereto are evident then it could be seen that the issues were considered. Quashing of the order u/s 263 in the circumstances has been held to be justified. 5.9 In the facts of the present case also, it was submitted, on a reading of the detailed order passed by the AO running into 10 pages, the AO conscious of the fact that a complete scrutiny on account of certain major issues for examination was mandated by CASS, one of them being large value of ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 15 of 35 receipt of payment of loans and large share premium received during the year carried out a detailed enquiry on account of this specific fact and also made the addition. The ld. PCIT has exercised his powers taking note of the fact that the addition made by the AO on account of M/s Advaith Investment Ltd. which was subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A) for which the assessee had opted for 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was perused by him and hence he proceeded to exercise the power u/s 263. The power exercised in the facts, it was submitted, is an abuse of the Statutory provisions. Without pointing out to any error in the order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the Revisionary powers, it was submitted, cannot be exercised. 5.10 Without conceding it was his submission that had the ld. PCIT carried out enquiries and he had come across some fresh information, then perhaps he could validly may have been in a position to exercise powers u/s 147, however, in the facts of the present case, there is no fresh information, infact there is no information except the fact that the assessee has approached the PCIT’s office for settling under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' on an issue on which appeal was pending before the CIT(A). ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 16 of 35 5.11 Reliance has also been placed upon decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Late Shri Vijay Kumar Koganti 195 DTR 428 (available at pages 100 to 104 of the Paper Book) again for the proposition that each of these issues had been looked into by the AO where proper explanations had been given. The order of the ITAT quashing the 263 proceedings challenged by the Revenue was held to be entirely factual wherein no substantial question of law could be shown. 5.12 Reliance was also placed upon decisions of the ITAT Vishakhapatnam Bench in the case of M/s DTE Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT and in the case of M/s Khan Mohammad Diamonds & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (available at pages 105 to 108 and 109 -111 of the Paper Book) again for the proposition that where the issues have been considered by the AO on which a view had been taken which was a possible view, then order u/s 263 was held to be not maintainable. Reliance was placed upon judgement in the case of PCIT vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. 423 ITR 180 (Cal); judgment of Hon'ble of High Court of Haryana in the case of Hari Om Stones in 423 ITR 0198 (Raj.); judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of A. R. Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. in 425 ITR 0272 (Mad.) and judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. in 429 ITR 0493 (Guj.); judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Amit Corporation, ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 17 of 35 (2012) 81 CCH 69 ; judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT Surat Bench, in the case of Pramod Keshari Chand Shah vs. PCIT in ITA No. 43/SRT/2018 and decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. ADIT 328 ITR 148 for the proposition that the order u/s 263 may be quashed. 5.13 Carrying the Bench through the detailed assessment order and referring to the documents pointed out in Paper Book-1 specifically page-2 addressing the gross sales of the assessee company for the period ended on 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2015 which reflected gross sales of Rs.3559839407 and Rs.4095021857. Thus, it was his submission that the assessee is not a paper company and had substantial sales. It was submitted that the assessee is a company of means wherein parties have invested. Attention was also invited to the documents filed before the AO, the balance sheet alongwith complete annexures. Confirmed copy of account of Smt. Shweta Goyal at pages 10 to 12, confirmed copy of account of M/s Advaith Investment Ltd. (pages 13-17), confirmed copy of account of Interface Financial Securities alongwith bank statement and evidence of filing the return (pages 18-21) and confirmed copy of account of Sun and Shine World alongwith bank statement and evidence of filing the return (pages 22-27). Copy of form No. PAS-3 under the Companies Law with regard to allotment of shares allotted at pages 28 to 40 of the Paper ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 18 of 35 Book were referred to. Attention was also invited to Paper Book page 48 which is scanned copy of account of M/s Shweta Agro Farms, copy of the Valuation Report of the shares of the assessee company available at pages 41-46 were relied upon. Similar attention was invited to copy of account of Shri Ashwani Kumar for 2016-17 and 2017-18 assessment years showing that cheques were returned. These are filed at pages 56-59. Copy of account of Shri Deep Bansal for 2016-17 and 2017-18 assessment years, account showing that cheques were returned, available at pages 60-61 had been shown; copy of account of Smt. Shweta Goyal for 2016-17 and 2017-18 assessment years showing that cheques were returned available at pages 62-63 were referred to. Similarly, copy of account of M/s Pawan Overseas Ltd. for 2016-17 and 2017-18 assessment years again showing that the cheques were returned at pages 4&5 were shown to the AO and available with the Revenue were referred. Copy of the Master Data of the companies from whom share application money was received at pages 67-68 were relied upon. 5.14 Over and above the decisions cited, reliance was also placed upon the recent decision of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Shri G.S. Prizada, HUF in ITA No. 48/CHD/2021 dated 25.11.2021 ( available at pages 158-170) for the proposition of law that where lack of adequate opportunity ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 19 of 35 before the passing of the order without considering the reply of the assessee was a fact on record the order passed was to be quashed. Reliance was also placed on the decision of ITAT Raipur Bench in the case of Dee Vee Projects Ltd. Vs PCIT reported in 207 DTR 452 ( available at pages 171 to 175). The said decision also, it was submitted, proceeds on similar facts where lack of adequate opportunity was considered, it was held that departmental request of remand cannot be accepted. Accordingly, it was his prayer that considering the position of law and on the facts available, the order may be quashed. 6. The ld. DR addressing the arguments of the ld. AR and the grounds raised submitted that the grounds deserve to be dismissed. He submitted that he would first address Ground No. 6 wherein the assessee has agitated violation of the procedures of natural justice and pleaded that it is a case of lack of opportunity. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the assessee is in receipt of the Show Cause Notice and has chosen not to give any reply and the reply referred to at pages 71-72 of the Paper Book, it was his submission, is in fact no reply as therein he only seeks a few days’ time and then sits quietly and waits till the order is passed knowing fully well that the limitation is expiring and then now before the ITAT pleads for its quashing. It was his submission that on the receipt of the Show Cause Notice, what stopped the assessee to give a reply ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 20 of 35 not within a few days as directed by the PCIT but after a fortnight or any time before the passing of the order. It is not a case that Show Cause Notice has been issued to the assessee and immediately thereafter the order u/s 263 has been passed. 6.1 In the said factual matrix, it was submitted that all the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR were distinguishable and not relevant. 6.2 It was also his submission that the mere fact that the company is having a high turnover and has the best of brains available to it and legal advice available to it, has received the Show Cause Notice can very well be expected to give a reply within a short time. As per record, no reply for almost four months was given and thus, in para 3.1 the ld. PCIT is correct in recording that no reply has been received because the reply referred to at pages 71-72 of the Paper Book was in a fact a case of no reply as it was only informing PCIT that assessee has gone on some issue for 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The information was not relevant hence, it was a case of no reply. The time was available and the reply made available cannot be termed to be a specific reply on the specific issues on which the Show Cause Notice was issued to the assessee. It was his submission that in the facts of the present case, why the ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 21 of 35 assessee chose to remain silent for four months is the area which the assessee should address. 6.3 On the merits of the addition, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that he would without wasting time again would seek to read out only para 8 from the assessment order which has been read out by the ld. AR also. Reading from the said para, ld. CIT-DR submitted that AO has clearly made out a case that M/s Interface Financial Services located at Ahmedabad is returning a loss income and the amount was stated to have been received from Dhanlakshmi Lease Finance Ltd. and M/s Yogi Raj Mills Pvt. Ltd. The AO has noticed that since the amount is credited then transferred to another company leaving a meager balance. Similarly in the case of M/s Sun & Shine World located at Raipur maintaining account with HDFC Bank, Ahmedabad, it was submitted, that the amounts received from M/s Synergy Ltd. are immediately transferred to the assessee. Similar is the position noticed by the AO in the case of Shweta Goyal who has received the amount from another company and immediately transferred it to the assessee company and she has returned a ‘Nil’ income for the year. The said paragraph of the AO’s order, it was submitted, clearly demonstrates the fact that the transactions were not genuine. It was in this background that the revenue is relying upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Venus ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 22 of 35 Woolen Mills Ltd. (2019) 105 Taxmann.com 287 (P&H) and decision of the Apex Court and the Calcutta High Court in the case of Raj Mandir Estates P.Ltd. (2017) 77 taxmann.com 285(S.C). 6.4 Addressing the argument advanced by the ld. AR that the AO has examined and discussed the entire case, attention was invited to para 4 of the assessment order where the Assessing Officer observes that the issue of introduction of share capital/premium has been considered by him on a test check basis. He expressed his surprise on the said observation submitting that he has never come across any such instance where the order requiring such issues for consideration can be passed on a test check basis. The issues have to be considered minutely and meticulously. Whatever evidences, the assessee has filed before the AO, it was his submission is not relevant. The settled legal position thereon, it was submitted, is that the evidence was neutral. Accordingly, it was his prayer that the order may be upheld. 7. In reply, the ld. AR submitted that it is a clear case of not granting opportunity of being heard to the assessee, granting merely four days, cannot be said to be a fair exercise which is why the assessee responded by way of a letter seeking more time. The assessee therein had also brought to the notice of ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 23 of 35 the PCIT the fact that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute under 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The fact of approaching the Forum for settling the dispute was brought to the notice of the PCIT. The relevant documents at Paper Book page 3 were heavily relied upon : S L . P A R T I C U L A R S 1. Filing of Form No. 1 Et 2 for VSV to PCIT (Central), Ludhiana. 2. Issuance of Form No.3 issued by the PCIT (Central), Ludhiana 3. Filing of Form No.4 by the assessee 4. Form-5 issued by the PCIT, accepting the VSV 7.1. Accordingly, it was submitted that the assessee remained under a bonafide belief that in case the ld. PCIT is not satisfied with the reply he would give more time and since no time was granted, it was considered that the Revenue was satisfied with the explanation. It was submitted that clearly it is a case of lack of opportunity. Once the PCIT issues Show Cause Notice and reply is considered insufficient , he cannot ignore the request for time. It was submitted even if for a moment it is accepted that the reply was not noticed, even otherwise the fact remains that the ld. PCIT sat over the issue till the limitation was expiring and then at the fag end passed the order without referring to any new fact. 7.2. Addressing the argument of the ld. CIT-DR that the record was seen on a test check basis, it was submitted, that ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 24 of 35 these are the observations of the AO and the assessee cannot dictate how the order should be written. It was submitted that the fact on record is that considering the record exhaustively, addition was made. A query was put by the Bench whether the said case was a case where 154 was maintainable and whether it had been issued, the parties chose not to address any specific reply thereto. 7.3 The ld. AR addressing the decisions relied upon by the ld. DR submitted that these were not applicable. The decision in the case of Raj Mandir (supra), it was submitted, was a decision on the merits of the case and it was not a case of lack of enquiry. In the facts of the said case, the AO completed the assessment without adequate enquiry which is not a fact in the present proceedings. In the case of Venus Woolens, cited supra, it was submitted there was a surrender of 2.51 Cr and in the returned income, only Rs. 1.03 Cr had been offered and no reason was given whatsoever why the surrender was reduced. 7.4 The objections posed by the PCIT ignoring the replies given by the assessee and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal incorrectly and instead ignoring the legal position as set out by the Apex Court in the case of Daulat Ram Chella Ram, it was submitted, is contrary to law. The conscious view taken by the AO and the PCIT ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 25 of 35 remaining silent for four months, it was submitted, deserves to be quashed. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on facts. In the facts of the present case, the assessee has argued on the legality of the order passed which is stated to be an arbitrary exercise of power. The order is assailed as having been passed without caring to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee leading to the order being passed in a mechanical manner. The assessee has also argued the appeal on merits submitting that the issue has been considered at length by the AO in the course of the assessment proceedings wherein specific attention has been invited to para 8 of the assessment order to show that the AO was conscious of the fact that the increase in share application money received by the assessee was being routed through the different companies. A pattern had been noticed that leaving a meager balance and considering the overall facts of the case ultimately proceeded to make the addition qua some of the parties. The ld. AR has also canvassed (Para 8 of the synopsis extracted in the earlier part of this order) that infact the cheques received by the assessee from the various parties were ultimately never encashed and were returned back and evidences to that extent have been shown to the AO. The other issues are argued to have been addressed in the 'Vivad Se ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 26 of 35 Vishwas Scheme'. We at this stage do not deem it necessary to address this factual submission as at this stage, we are looking at the legal grounds. The argument advanced that all these facts have been seen by the AO and thus, in that backdrop as per record, the ld. PCIT in the 263 proceedings is relooking at the very same facts, are facts on record. Thus, it was his submission that once a view has been taken on the same set of facts, the exercise of powers u/s 263 without pointing out to any error and that too such an error which causes prejudice to the Revenue, the authority is not vested with the powers to pass a Revisionary order. It has also been canvassed that if at all some fresh information was available to the Tax authorities, then possibly provisions of Section 148 could have been resorted to, however on the very same facts, 263 order was not maintainable. However, before proceeding to address the issue on merits, if need be, as we have already observed, we deem it appropriate to first examine the claim of the assessee on the legal grounds that the order has been passed ignoring the submissions of the assessee admittedly received on the ITBP portal and incorrectly noting that no reply has been given by the assessee. The said fact, in the backdrop where Show Cause Notice is issued to the assessee on 23.11.2020 expecting a reply latest by 27.11.2020 and admittedly reply of the assessee on 23.11.2020 is available on record. We are left ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 27 of 35 with the position where two situations were possible. First, possibility could have been that the said reply had not been noticed by the ld. PCIT as the ld. PCIT records in the impugned order that no reply has been given by the assessee. The said possibility reflects an attitude of careless exercise of power and may support the argument that there was a total lack of application of mind on the part of the ld. PCIT or alternately the reply informing that the assessee had opted for 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was considered irrelevant, hence equivalent to no reply as canvassed by the ld. CIT(A). However, the fact remains that the assessee has sought time. In the said backdrop the argument of the ld. AR that the assessee remained sanguine in the belief that the reply offered is accepted and the proceedings are closed, are plausible and on the other hand, when juxta posed with the finding in the order that no reply has been given, it clearly demonstrates a mechanical exercise of power coupled with the fact that the ld. PCIT did not even care to issue any further notice to the assessee before the passing of the order. The fact that no further opportunity was given to the assessee is a fact on record which is not disputed by the ld. CIT-DR also. It is seen that the ld. PCIT made no efforts to gather any information either from the public domain or refer to any efforts made by the Investigation Wing or any other authority to show that the order passed is ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 28 of 35 an order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. We have taken into consideration the orders and the decisions relied upon by the parties. We have seen that the subject matter of mechanical exercise of 263 power and the questions whether still another lifeline be given to the Revenue has been taken into consideration by the Courts and the Tribunals in the various decisions cited before us. 10. In the facts of the present case, it has been seen that at the very first instance, the ld. PCIT as per record has given inadequate time to the assessee to respond to the detailed queries addressed in the Show Cause Notice. The fact that knowingly and consciously, inadequate time was given is a fact which raises a flag when the issues for consideration are whether a fair exercise of power has been done by the ld. PCIT in the facts of the present case or not ? The lack of adequate time itself demonstrates that at the very first instance, there was no such intention to give any effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee as admittedly time of only 4 days was given which cannot be said to be adequate especially since there was sufficient time available with the ld. PCIT under the Statute to pass a correct order in accordance with law. The fact that the opportunity so being given is illusory and farcical ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 29 of 35 is further aggravated with the other facts patent on the face of the record itself. When this fact is coupled alongwith the other facts which are not in dispute namely that there was a reply given by the assessee which has remained ignored. No doubt, the reply available was not sufficient and complete to address the issues, the fact that the assessee sought time and also apprised the said authority that qua the increase in share application pending before the CIT(A), the assessee had opted for 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. So far as the assessee is concerned, the reply was available on record. The fact that it was not considered by the ld. PCIT is again another glaring fact on record. The evidence that it was made available is also not disputed by the ld. CIT-DR and who has instead countered the same stating that since the reply was not relevant hence it amounts to a case where no reply has been given, hence the ld. PCIT is correct in noting that no reply has been filed. 11. We have considered the said argument also and given our utmost consideration to the rival claims and on consideration thereof, we have considered that if for a moment we go alongwith with the submissions of the ld. DR that the reply was seen by the ld. PCIT and considered to be not relevant, the fact that the assessee was seeking time was patently evident from the said reply itself, what stopped the ld. PCIT to give an opportunity of being heard within a reasonable ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 30 of 35 time. On this glaring shortcoming on this fact patently available on the face of the record, there is no submission. Examining the claim further , we deliberate that if the ld. PCIT who knowingly gives inadequate time to the assessee to file its reply considering the reply filed irrelevant notices that the assessee is seeking time, we do not find any reason why the ld. PCIT could not grant a hearing saying that time has been granted fix a date and then pass the order after hearing the assessee. However, in the facts of the present case, ld. PCIT fails to do so. So, whether the reply was noticed or remained un-noticed, the consequences are that if it was noticed, ld. PCIT failed to do what he was required to do and if it was not noticed, then he passed an order mechanically. These facts when further noticed in the backdrop where the ld. PCIT after issuing the Short Cause Notice on 23.11.2020 sat over the very same information, made no efforts from any source, whatsoever to address the specific facts or the specific concerns from any other information in the public domain or made any efforts seeking information from the Investigation Wing of the Department, sat over the information for a period of almost 5 months and passed the order upsetting a statutory order which has been passed without any compunction. The said arbitrary exercise of power, we find cannot be upheld. Notwithstanding the fact that the right to be heard is very important and ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 31 of 35 salient right which cannot be allowed to be trifled with. It has been noted judicially across all common law countries of the world. Audi alteram partem is well understood and expected to be adhered to in all orders passed by any administrative or quasi-judicial authority. No decisions need be cited to quote that it is a well settled legal position that no party can be visited by an adverse order without being heard. The blatant fact staring on the face of the record is that not only the power has been exercised in an arbitrary, unfair manner contrary to settled legal positions, it has also been exercised where the ld. PCIT himself failed to do what he was required to do. The fact also appears that the provisions of the Act necessitated that the ld. PCIT before upsetting a statutorily passed order exercising the revisionary powers is expected to do the basic exercise of undertaking enquiries etc. at his end. It is incumbent upon him to undertake an enquiry and set out the facts. This exercise, in the facts of the present case has not been done. Accordingly, considering the position of law as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. 398 ITR 8 , the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kanda Rice Mills 178 ITR 446. We find that the appeal has to be allowed. The position of law as considered for service of notice which proceeds on the footing that effective opportunity of being ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 32 of 35 heard was denied to the assessee, we find the order passed deserves to be quashed. For this, reference may be made to CIT Vs Girdhari Lal 147 ITR 379 (Raj). Reference may also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sona Builders Vs Union of India 251 ITR 197 (S.C) which, no doubt was in the context of acquisition of immovable property , wherein the Appropriate Authority had not granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to the parties, the Court considering the statutory limit within which the Appropriate Authority, had to act and its failure to confirm to that time limit invoking the principles of natural justice, the Apex Court quashed the order and did not remand the matter back. The position of law as considered by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Smt. Leela Chaudhary Vs CIT (2007) 289 ITR 226 (Gau) which mandates that the explanation offered by the assessee must be considered is also drawn support from. 12. Accordingly, considering the factual background as discussed above at length and the position of law, we deem it appropriate to quash the order passed on the legal grounds itself. Hence, the arguments advanced by the parties on merits though noticed in the order need not be adjudicated upon consequently. ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 33 of 35 13. At this stage it would be worthwhile to extract the valuable words of wisdom which their Lordships deemed it necessary to highlight. In the said decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (S.C), no doubt considering the facts of the specific case Revision of the assessment order was held to be justified on facts, however, the discussion on the relevant statutory provisions and their area of operation has been very clearly enunciated by them. Their Lordships have held : 9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different authorities to deal with orders of assessment passed by the primary authority. While Section 147 confers power on the Assessing Authority itself to proceed against income escaping assessment, Section 154 of the Act empowers such authority to correct a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The power of appeal and revision is contained in Chapter XX of the Act which includes Section 263 that confer suo motu power of revision in the learned C.I.T. The different shades of power conferred on different authorities under the Act has to be exercised within the areas specifically delineated by the Act and the exercise of power under one provision cannot trench upon the powers available under another provision of the Act. In this regard, it must be specifically noticed that against an order of assessment, so far as the Revenue is concerned, the power conferred under the Act is to reopen the concluded assessment under Section 147 and/or to revise the assessment order under Section 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under the different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power and jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment, therefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions of the relevant Sections noticed above. While doing so it must also be borne in mind that the legislature had not vested in the Revenue any specific power to question an order of assessment by means of an appeal. 10. Reverting to the specific provisions of Section 263 of the Act what has to be seen is that a satisfaction that an order passed by the Authority under the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is the basic pre-condition for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Both are twin conditions that have to be conjointly present. Once such satisfaction is reached, jurisdiction to exercise the power would be available subject to observance of the principles of natural justice which is implicit in the requirement cast by the Section to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard. It is in the context of the above position that this Court has repeatedly held that unlike the power of reopening an assessment under Section 147 of the Act, the power of revision under Section 263 is not contingent on the giving of a notice to show cause. In fact, Section 263 has been understood not to require any specific show cause notice to be served on the assessee. Rather, what is required under the said provision is an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The two ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 34 of 35 requirements are different; the first would comprehend a prior notice detailing the specific grounds on which revision of the assessment order is tentatively being proposed. Such a notice is not required. What is contemplated by Section 263, is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the assessee. Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Reference........................................”. 13.1 Deliberating further on the mandatory procedure @ 211 in para 11, their Lordships have clearly enunciated : “.....................Of course, there can be no dispute that while the C.I.T. is free to exercise his jurisdiction on consideration of all relevant facts, a full opportunity to controvert the same and to explain the circumstances surrounding such facts, as may be considered relevant by the assessee, must be afforded to him by the C.I.T. prior to the finalization of the decision.” 13.2 The need was also felt by their Lordships to further elaborate @ 216 in para 21 as under : “There can be no doubt that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view the same ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter. Permitting exercise of revisional power in a situation where two views are possible would really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority. This is a course of action that must be desisted from.............................” 13.3 We draw support from the above legal position as enunciated by the Apex Court. 14. Before parting it may not be out of context to also refer to the guiding principles in the cautious and the over arching multi- tudonous conflicting interests which are witnessed in the polity often by the Apex Court which possibly could be kept in mind by the Revenue Officers. The following salutary words expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. V ITO 106 ITR 1 (S.C) throw a beacon of light in the darkness where the rival claims/issues at stake for the parties are of consideration. The Hon'ble Judges opined, “......It has been said ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 35 of 35 that the taxes are the price that we pay for civilization. If so, it is essential that those who are entrusted with the task of calculating and realising that price should familiarise themselves with the relevant provisions and become well versed with the law on the subject. Any remissness on their part can only be at the cost of the national exchequer and must necessarily result in loss of revenue. At the same time, we have to bear in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that state issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity.” 15. Accordingly, for the detailed reasons given herein above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 16. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 09 March,2022. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (DIVA SINGH) लेखा लेखालेखा लेखा सद瀡य सद瀡यसद瀡य सद瀡य/ Accountant Member 瀈याियक 瀈याियक瀈याियक 瀈याियक सद瀡य सद瀡यसद瀡य सद瀡य/ Judicial Member “Poonam” आदेश क琉 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ牸/ The Appellant 2..灹瀄यथ牸/ The Respondent 3.आयकर आयु猴/ CIT4.आयकर आयु猴 (अपील)/ The CIT(A)5.िवभागीय 灹ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च瀃डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6.गाड榁 फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar