Smt. Usha Pandurang Kulkarni, Aurangabad V. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax - 2,

ITA 849/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7229 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIRUPAMA KOTRU
• Assessee Lawyers: C D UPASANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Proportionate interest; Assessment record; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 263; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NOS.849 TO 851/PUN/2015 [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 SMT. USHA PANDURANG KULKARNI, PROPRIETOR OF SHARADA EARTH MOVERS, PLOT NO.32, SHRINIWAS, GURUKUNJ, HOUSING SOCIETY, TILAKNAGAR, AURANGABAD 431005. PAN : ALLPK1791Q. . / APPELLANT V/S PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, AURANGABAD. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.D. UPASANI REVENUE BY : SMT. NIRUPAMA KOTRU / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE EMANATING OUT OF DIFFERENT ORDERS OF PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2, AURANGABAD (PR.CIT) DT. 05.03.2015 FOR A.YS. 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THESE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 FOR THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS BUT SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THREE YEARS ARE INTER- CONNECTED, HIS ARGUMENTS WILL ALSO BE COMMON AND THEREFORE ALL THE / DATE OF HEARING : 14.09.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.10.2017 2 THREE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD AND DISPOSED OF TOGETHER. LD. D.R. DID NOT OBJECT TO THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF LD.A.R. WE THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER, BUT HOWEVER, PROCEED WITH NARRATING THE FACTS IN ITA NO.849/PUN/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF SHARADA EARTH MOVERS AND DERIVING INCOME FROM CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. FOR A.Y. 2003- 04, ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.11.2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,50,793/-. A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON ASSESSEES PREMISES ON 2.2.2006 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE SHARDA EARTH MOVERS WERE ALSO SURVEYED. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE REVISED HER RETURN OF INCOME U/S 153A ON 28.08.2006 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,50,793/- BEING THE SAME AS ORIGINALLY FILED. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND AN ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.31.12.2007. AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO DECIDED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 26.04.2012 RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH NECESSARY DIRECTIONS. PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF TRIBUNAL, AO PASSED ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 ON 14.03.2013 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.4,59,825/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, LD.PR.CIT VIDE ORDER DATED 05.03.2015 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2013 PASSED BY THE 3 AO U/S 143 R.W.S 254 WAS ERRONEOUS AND IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1) HE NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED RS.2,91,57,315/- FROM SOLAPUR JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED IN MARCH, 2003 AND OUT OF WHICH RS.2,85,00,100/- WAS ADVANCED TO RUDRANEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ON 21.03.2003 WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTEREST THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS.5,54,205/- AS INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 2) HE ALSO NOTICED THAT DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED SUB-CONTRACT FROM RUDRANEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF RS.84 CRORE (ROUNDED OFF) AGAINST THE TOTAL ADVANCE GIVEN TO RUDRANEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF RS.2,85,00,100/- AND THAT THE AO HAD DISALLOWED PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF RS.1,09,032/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIVERSION OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS (ON RS.2,85,00,100/- RS 84,00,691/-). 3) AO HAD FAILED TO EXAMINE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED THE MONEY TO ITS SISTER CONCERN AND WHAT THE SISTER CONCERN DID WITH THE MONEY AND ITS PURPOSE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A.BUILDERS. HE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.PR.CIT, ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 2. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE AFTER MAKING ADEQUATE ENQUIRIES AND APPLICATION OF MIND AND OUGHT NOT TO BE REVISED. 4 3. ON THE FACT OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SATISFIED HIMSELF AFTER MAKING ADEQUATE ENQUIRIES ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY OF THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE GIVEN TO M/S. RUDRANEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. 4. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN REFERRING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE. 4. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT THE SOLE CONTROVERSY IS ASSESSEES CHALLENGE TO THE INVOKING OF POWERS BY LD.PR.CIT IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 5. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD.PR.CIT AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PRE- REQUISITE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ARE NOT SATISFIED AND THEREFORE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT LACKS JURISDICTION AND ARE BAD IN LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT U/S 263 THE LD.PR.CIT CAN REVISE THE ORDER PASSED BY AO ONLY ON THE SATISFACTION OF TWIN CONDITIONS NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT I.E. IF EITHER THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SEC.263(1). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE AO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE LD.PR.CIT DOES NOT AGREE, THE ORDER OF THE AO CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND FOR THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD., VS. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). IN THE PRESENT CASE, HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A, THE ASSESSEE 5 WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE DEPOSIT OF MONEY WITH RUDRANEE CONSTRUCTION WAS IN THE INTEREST OF BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE AND WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS DIVERSION OF BORROWED FUNDS. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO AO. ACCORDINGLY AO TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS 2.85 CRORE ADVANCED BY ASSESSEE TO RUDRANEE CONSTRUCTION CO., AS DIVERSION OF FUNDS FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.8 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST FOR DIVERSION OF FUNDS. LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.PR.CIT(A) WHO FOR AY 2003-04 TO AY 2009-10 ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF INTEREST FOR THE REASON THAT THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE BY ASSESSEE TO RUDRANEE CONSTRUCTION CO., WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. LD AR SUBMITTED THAT AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE TRIBUNAL. TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 26.04.2012 RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A. BUILDERS (SUPRA). THEREAFTER THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY AO ON 14.03.2013 U/S 143(3) RWS 254 WHEREIN THE AO HELD THAT ADVANCING OF RS.84 LACS TO RUDRANEE CONSTRUCTION WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND TREATED THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.2 CRORE (ROUNDED OFF) AS BEING DIVERSION OF FUNDS AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED INTEREST OF RS.1,09,032/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIVERSION OF BORROWED FUNDS. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED IN TWO ROUNDS AND THERE HAS BEEN APPLICATION OF MIND BY ALL THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES, AND WHEN AO HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS, THEN THE REVISION ON THE SAME ISSUE BY LD.PR.CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW. HE 6 THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LD.PR.CIT U/S 263 BE SET ASIDE. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD.PR.CIT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO EXERCISE OF REVISIONARY POWERS U/S 263 BY THE LD.PR.CIT. SEC.263(1) OF THE ACT, THE POWERS UNDER WHICH LD.CIT HAS ASSUMED POWER FOR REVISION READS AS UNDER: THE COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ITO IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. THE READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION U/S 263(1) IS IN THE NATURE OF SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION AND THE SAME CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED THEREIN EXIST. TWO CIRCUMSTANCES MUST EXIST TO ENABLE THE COMMISSIONER TO EXERCISE POWER OF REVISION U/S 263, NAMELY (I) THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS (II) BY VIRTUE OF BEING ERRONEOUS PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO LTD (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT LD.PR.CIT HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE AO SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENTIF THE ORDER OF THE ITO IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUERECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SEC. 263(1). IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE AO; WHEN AN ITO ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN 7 LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ITO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE LD.PR.CIT DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITO IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 7. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD (SUPRA) THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: AN ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS UNLESS IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF AN ITO ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAKES CERTAIN ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE ACCORDING TO HIM THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY. THIS SECTION DOES NOT VISUALISE A CASE OF SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE ITO, WHO PASSED THE ORDER, UNLESS THE DECISION IS HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. CASES MAY BE VISUALISED WHERE ITO WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES ENQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME EITHER BY ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNTS OR BY MAKING SOME ESTIMATES HIMSELF. THE COMMISSIONER, ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, MAY BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE OFFICER CONCERNED WAS ON THE LOWER SIDE AND, LEFT TO THE COMMISSIONER, HE WOULD HAVE ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT A HIGHER FIGURE THAN THE ONE DETERMINED BY THE ITO. THAT WOULD NOT VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH POWER TO RE-EXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINE THE INCOME HIMSELF AT A HIGHER FIGURE. IT IS BECAUSE THE ITO HAS EXERCISED THE QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER VESTED IN HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION AND SUCH A CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT FEEL SATISFIED WITH THE CONCLUSION. IT MAY BE SAID IN SUCH A CASE THAT IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSIONER THE ORDER IN QUESTION IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. BUT THAT BY ITSELF WILL NOT BE ENOUGH TO VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION BECAUSE THE FIRST REQUIREMENT, NAMELY, THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, IS ABSENT. SIMILARLY IF AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THEN ALSO THE POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION CANNOT BE EXERCISED. ANY AND EVERY ERRONEOUS ORDER CANNOT BE SUBJECT-MATTER OF REVISION BECAUSE THE SECOND REQUIREMENT ALSO MUST BE FULFILLED. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON ACCOUNT OF DIVERSION OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WAS FIRSTLY EXAMINED BY THE AO IN THE 153A PROCEEDINGS AND HE ARRIVED AT A CERTAIN CONCLUSION AND DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES. THEREAFTER THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO AGREED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE 8 ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH NECESSARY DIRECTIONS. PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF TRIBUNAL, AO IN THE SECOND ROUND AGAIN EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND HELD THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT ADVANCED BY ASSESSEE, PART OF THE AMOUNT WAS FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE AND PART OF THE AMOUNT WAS DIVERSION OF INTEREST BEARING ADVANCES AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED PART OF THE INTEREST EXPENSES. THUS THE AO HAD AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND IN THE 2 ND ROUND, HAD MADE AN ESTIMATE OF THE AMOUNTS DIVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES. ON SUCH ORDER OF THE AO IN SECOND ROUND, LD.PR.CIT HAS EXERCISED REVISIONARY POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND HAS HELD THE ORDER OF THE AO IN SECOND ROUND TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, BEFORE US REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW OR THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE AO WAS IMPERMISSIBLE IN LAW. IN THE PRESENT FACTS, WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.PR.CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE REVISIONARY POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT MORE SO AS THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION DOES NOT VISUALIZE THE CASE OF SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGMENT OF THE LD.CIT FOR THAT OF AO WHO PASSED THE ORDER WOULD UNLESS THE VIEW ADOPTED BY AO WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FOR WHICH WE ALSO DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE DECISIONS CITED HEREIN ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS CITED HEREIN ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, LD.PR.CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE REVISIONARY POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD.PR.CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT FOR A.Y 2002-03. BEFORE US, SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 ARE SIMILAR TO A.YS. 2004- 9 05 AND 2006-07, WE THEREFORE FOR SIMILAR REASONS AS STATED HEREINABOVE WHILE ALLOWING THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS ALLOW THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE FOR A.YS. 2004- 05 AND 2006-07. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS ARE ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST OCTOBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 31 ST OCTOBER, 2017. YAMINI / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. PRL.CIT(2), AURANGABAD. 4. JOINT CIT, RANGE-3, AURANGABAD. 5. , , / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; 6. [ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE