M/s. SICGIL India Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 877/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96568 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PATHLAVATH PEERYA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 131; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.877/MDS/2011 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S SICGIL INDIA LTD., 84, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002. PAN : AAACS 3767 A V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE VI(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PATHLAVATH PEERYA, CIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 06.10.2015 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.12.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI-III, CHENNA I, DATED 21.03.2011 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2 I.T.A. NO.877/MDS/11 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0-IB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') IN RESPEC T OF RENTAL CHARGES AND CYLINDER SERVICE CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALS O CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF CYLINDER TRANSPORTATION CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2,08,43,604/-. REFERRING TO THE SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY, THE LD.COUNS EL SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COUR T IN LIBERTY INDIA LTD. V. CIT (317 ITR 218). ACCORDING TO THE LD. COU NSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN FACT, A QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LL THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010- 11, AN IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE, IN RESPECT OF CYLINDER TRANSPORT CHARGES. THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN THE CYLINDER TRANSPORT CHARGES AS PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF LIQUID CARBON DIOXIDE. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ONE WING OF CE NTRAL GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS THE TRANSPORT OF CARBON DIOXID E AS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION, THERE IS NO REASON TO EXCLUDE T HE SAME WHILE 3 I.T.A. NO.877/MDS/11 COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE DELIVERY CHARGES OF CARBON DIOXIDE S HOULD BE TREATED AS HAVING DIRECT NEXUS WITH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF TURNOVER AND T HE SAME IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT. IN V IEW OF THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUN SEL, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER IS NOT CORRECT IN DIREC TING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE THE CYLINDER TRANSPORT CHARGES OF ` 2,08,43,604/- FROM THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR THE PURP OSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT. 3. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, WHEN THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED ANY OF THE CLAIM AND THE APPLICATION OF MIND DOES NOT REFLECT IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHET HER THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTERESTS OF REVENUE? THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISCUSS EACH AND EVERYTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICE R CONSIDERED ALL THE MATERIALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEN AL LOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CONSCIOUSLY, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DI SCUSS THE MATTER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD.COUNSEL PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE 4 I.T.A. NO.877/MDS/11 JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V. DESIGN & AU TOMATION ENGINEERS (BOMBAY) (P) LTD. (2010) 323 ITR 632 AND ALSO ON THE JUDGMENTS OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. (2011) 332 ITR 167 AND CIT V. ANIL KUMA SHARMA (2011) 335 ITR 83. THE LD.COUNSEL HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. (201 1) 333 ITR 547. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. PATHLAVATH PEERYA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED WHETHER THE RENTAL CHARGES, CYLI NDER SERVICE CHARGES AND CYLINDER TRANSPORT CHARGES ARE DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. REFERRING TO SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT , THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER FOUND THA T IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENTS OF APEX COURT IN CAMBAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY I NDUSTRIES LTD. (113 ITR 84) AND CIT V. STERLING FOODS (237 ITR 579 ), THE TRANSPORT CHARGES, RENTAL CHARGES AND SERVICE CHARGES ARE NOT DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY IN RES PECT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND NOT FROM IN COME ATTRIBUTABLE 5 I.T.A. NO.877/MDS/11 TO BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE APPLICAT ION OF MIND DOES NOT REFLECT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE COMMI SSIONER FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. HENCE, AC CORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE COMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY REFUSED THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN EXERCISE OF HIS JURISDICTION U NDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THERE IS NO REFERENCE OR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEDUCTION CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT. THE QUEST ION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, CAN WE PRESUME TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED ALL THE MATERIAL AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE? ADMITTEDLY, THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A JUDICIAL PROCEEDI NG UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. THE REASON FOR CONCLUSION REACHED IN THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDING HAS TO BE RECORDED IN THE ORDER ITSELF. IT IS WELL SETTLED 6 I.T.A. NO.877/MDS/11 PRINCIPLE OF LAW WHETHER IT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE OR DER OR JUDICIAL ORDER, THE REASON FOR THE CONCLUSION / DECISION HAS TO BE RECORDED IN THE ORDER ITSELF SO AS TO ENABLE THE APPELLATE / REVISI ONAL AUTHORITY TO APPRECIATE THE REASON FOR TAKING A PARTICULAR DECIS ION IN THE PROCEEDING. IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSME NT ORDER IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER AN D IT IS ALSO SUBJECT TO REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BE FORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO RECORD HIS REASON FOR THE CONCLUSION RE ACHED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THERE IS NO REFERENCE ABOUT THE CLAM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION OR DISCU SSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE REASON IN THE ORD ER IS A LIVE LINK BETWEEN THE MIND OF THE DECISION MAKER AND HIS ORDE R. IN FACT, THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE A ND AFTER REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL BEN CH OF THE APEX COURT IN S.N.MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1990 SC 1984, HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 7 I.T.A. NO.877/MDS/11 IN S.N.MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1990 SC 1984, A CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT DISCUSSED TH E DEVELOPMENT OF LAW ON THIS SUBJECT IN INDIA, AUSTRALIA, CANADA, ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND AFTER MAKING REFERENCE TO A LARGE NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, THEIR LORDSHIPS CULL ED OUT THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS (PAGE 1995) : 'THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE INDI CATE THAT WITH REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENT TO RECORD REASONS TH E APPROACH OF THIS COURT IS MORE IN LINE WITH THAT OF THE AMER ICAN COURTS. AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS WEIGHED WITH T HE COURT FOR HOLDING THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY EXERCIS ING QUASI- JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS MUST RECORD THE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION, IS THAT SUCH A DECISION IS SUBJECT TO THE APPELLATE JU RISDICTION OF THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION AS W ELL AS THE SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURTS UNDER A RTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT THE REASONS, IF RECORDED, WOULD ENABLE THIS COURT OR THE HIGH COURTS TO EFFECTIVELY EXERCIS E THE APPELLATE OR SUPERVISORY POWER. BUT THIS IS NOT THE SOLE CONSIDERATION. THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE ALSO WEIGHED WITH THE COURT IN TAKING THIS VIEW ARE THAT THE REQ UIREMENT OF RECORDING REASONS WOULD (I) GUARANTEE CONSIDERATION BY THE AUTHORITY; (II) INTRODUCE CLARITY IN THE DECISIONS; AND (III) MINIMISE CHANCES OF ARBITRARINESS IN DECISION MAKIN G. IN THIS REGARD A DISTINCTION HAS BEEN DRAWN BETWEEN ORDINAR Y COURTS OF LAW AND TRIBUNALS AND AUTHORITIES EXERCISING JUDICIA L FUNCTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT A JUDGE IS TRAINED TO LOOK AT THING S OBJECTIVELY UNINFLUENCED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY OR EXPEDIEN CY WHEREAS AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER GENERALLY LOOKS AT THINGS FROM THE STAND POINT OF POLICY AND EXPEDIENCY. REASONS, WHEN RECORDED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORI TY IN AN ORDER PASSED BY IT WHILE EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL F UNCTIONS, WOULD NO DOUBT FACILITATE THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISD ICTION BY THE APPELLATE OR SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY. BUT THE OTHER CO NSIDERATIONS, REFERRED TO ABOVE, WHICH HAVE ALSO WEIGHED WITH THI S COURT IN HOLDING THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY MUST RECOR D REASONS FOR ITS DECISION, ARE OF NO LESS SIGNIFICANCE. THES E CONSIDERATIONS SHOW THAT THE RECORDING OF REASONS B Y AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY SERVES A SALUTARY PURPOSE, NAMELY, IT 8 I.T.A. NO.877/MDS/11 EXCLUDES CHANCES OF ARBITRARINESS AND ENSURES A DEGR EE OF FAIRNESS IN THE PROCESS OF DECISION-MAKING. THE SAI D PURPOSE WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL DECISIONS AND ITS APPLIC ATION CANNOT BE CONFINED TO DECISIONS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO APPEAL, REVISION OR JUDICIAL REVIEW. IN OUR OPINION, THEREFORE, THE REQ UIREMENT THAT REASONS BE RECORDED SHOULD GOVERN THE DECISIONS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL F UNCTIONS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE DECISION IS SU BJECT TO APPEAL, REVISION OR JUDICIAL REVIEW. IT MAY, HOWEVE R, BE ADDED THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THE REASONS SHOULD BE AS ELABORATE AS IN THE DECISION OF A COURT OF LAW. THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE REASONS WOULD DEPEND ON PARTICULAR FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES. WHAT IS NECESSARY IS THAT THE REASONS ARE CLEAR AND EXPLICIT SO AS TO INDICATE THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN DUE CON SIDERATION TO THE POINTS IN CONTROVERSY. THE NEED FOR RECORDING O F REASONS IS GREATER IN A CASE WHERE THE ORDER IS PASSED AT THE ORIGINAL STAGE. THE APPELLATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY, IF IT AFFIRMS SUCH AN ORDER, NEED NOT GIVE SEPARATE REASONS IF THE APPELL ATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY AGREES WITH THE REASONS CONTAI NED IN THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE.' IN TESTEELS LTD. V. N. M. DESAI [1970] 37 FJR 7; AIR 1970 GUJ 1, A FULL BENCH OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS MADE AN EXTREMELY LUCID ENUNCIATION OF LAW ON THE SUBJECT AND WE CAN DO NO BETTER THAN TO EXTRACT SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THAT DECISI ON. THE SAME ARE (HEADNOTE OF AIR 1970 (GUJ): 'THE NECESSITY OF GIVING REASONS FLOWS AS A NECESSA RY COROLLARY FROM THE RULE OF LAW WHICH CONSTITUTES ONE OF THE B ASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL SET-UP. THE ADMINISTRA TIVE AUTHORITIES HAVING A DUTY TO ACT JUDICIALLY CANNOT THEREFORE DE CIDE ON CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY OR EXPEDIENCY. THEY MUST DE CIDE THE MATTER SOLELY ON THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE, SOLELY ON THE MATERIAL BEFORE THEM AND APART FROM ANY EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS BY APPLYING PRE-EXISTING LEGAL NORMS TO FACTUAL SITUATIONS. NOW THE NECESSITY OF GIVING REASONS IS AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE OBSERVANCE OF THE DUTY TO ACT J UDICIALLY. IT INTRODUCES CLARITY, CHECKS THE INTRODUCTION OF EXTRA NEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND EXCLUDES OR, AT ANY RA TE, MINIMISES ARBITRARINESS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. 9 I.T.A. NO.877/MDS/11 ANOTHER REASON WHICH COMPELS MAKING OF SUCH AN ORDE R IS BASED ON THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH IS POSSESSED BY THE HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THESE COURTS HAVE THE POWER UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS TO QUASH BY CERTIORARI A QUASI-JUDICIAL ORDER MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND THIS POWER OF REVIEW CAN BE EFFECTIVELY EXERCISED ONLY IF THE ORDER IS A SPEAKING ORDER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER, THE SAID COURT S CANNOT EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW. T HE HIGH COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE POWERLESS TO I NTERFERE SO AS TO KEEP THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WITHIN THE LIMIT S OF THE LAW. THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW W OULD BE STULTIFIED AND NO REDRESS BEING AVAILABLE TO THE CI TIZEN, THERE WOULD BE INSIDIOUS ENCOURAGEMENT TO ARBITRARINESS AND CAP RICE. IF THIS REQUIREMENT IS INSISTED UPON, THEN, THEY WILL BE SU BJECT TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AND CORRECTION.' IF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS SCRUTINISED IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PROPOSITION OF LAW, WE DO NOT FIND A NY DIFFICULTY IN SETTING ASIDE THE SAME ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION O F THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE FLOWERY LANGUAGE USED BY THE T RIBUNAL TO JUSTIFY ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESPONDENT'S PLEA THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE LAW DOES NOT WARRANT OUR AFFIRMATION. IN OUR OPINION, T HE TRIBUNAL WAS DUTY BOUND TO RECORD TANGIBLE AND COGENT REASONS FO R UPSETTING WELL REASONED ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED ITS ATTENTION TO THE LANGUAGE OF SECTIONS 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE SAME FAMIL Y AND THEN DECIDED BY A REASONED ORDER WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAD BEEN ABLE TO MAKE OUT A CASE FOR DELETING THE PENALTY. THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE CLEARLY REFLECTED THE APPLICATION OF MI ND BY THE LEARNED MEMBERS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT, THIS T RIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENTS OF DELHI HIGH COURT (SUPRA) AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT (SUPRA) REFERRED BY THE LD.CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN OTHER 10 I.T.A. NO.877/MDS/11 WORDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO RECORD REA SONS ONE WAY OR OTHER FOR THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO DISCUSS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT AND RECORD HIS OWN R EASON EITHER FOR ALLOWING OR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THIS EXERCISE HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTERESTS OF REVENUE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER. HOWE VER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE PASSING CONSEQUENTIAL ORDE R, SHALL CONSIDER THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN I.T.A. NO.1174/MDS/2015 DATED 29.09.2015 AND OTHER JUDGMENTS, IF ANY, BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL INDEPENDEN TLY EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE . 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. 11 I.T.A. NO.877/MDS/11 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18 TH DECEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 18 TH DECEMBER, 2015. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 /CIT, CHENNAI-III, CHENNAI-34 4. 7: -2 /DR 5. ( ; /GF.