Ashish Subodhchandra Shah (HUF), Ahmedabad V. The Pr. CIT-5, Ahmedabad

ITA 881/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0053 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDRA OJHA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 92D; 80IA; 263; 63; 92

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 881/AHD/2019 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) ASHISH SUBODHCHANDRA SHAH (HUF) 21, PALACIAL BUNGALOWS, OPP. LANE TO STAR BAZAAR, JODHPUR, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD / VS. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAKHS8184D ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MAHESH CHHAJED, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIRENDRA OJHA, CIT. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 24/06/2020 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29/06/2020 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-5 (PR.CIT IN SHORT), DATED 26.03.2019 A RISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.06.2016 PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (T HE ACT) CONCERNING AY 2014-15. ITA NO. 881/AHD/19 [ASHISH S. SHAH (HUF) VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 2 - 2. IN THE CAPTIONED APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLE NGED THE ACTION OF THE PR.CIT ASSUMED UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT WHEREB Y ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY AO UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT WAS SO UGHT TO BE SET ASIDE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL ENQUIRIES ON TRANSACTIONS U NDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH SISTER CONCERN HAVING REGARD TO PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 92BA OF THE ACT. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSE POINTED OUT THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.06.2016 CONCE RNING AY 2014- 16 PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT ASSESSING THE T OTAL INCOME AT RS.27,81,630/-. THE ORDER SO PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT WAS SOUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE BY THE PR.CIT IN EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT DESPITE THE DOM ESTIC TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COVERED WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 92BA OF THE ACT FOR WHICH PRESCRIBED FORM 3CEB ISSU ED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE, THE AO HAS FAILED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (T PO) AND IN CARRYING OUT THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENTIAL INQUIRIES. 3.1 A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT DATE D 04.12.2018 WAS ISSUED IN THE REGARD WAS REFERRED TO BY THE LEA RNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH READ AS UNDER: ON VERIFICATION OF YOUR ASSESSMENT CASE RECORDS FO R THE A.Y. 2014-15, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS PASSED ON 20/06/2016 BY THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.27,81 ,630/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.27,60,030/-. HOWEVER, ON EXA MINATION OF THE DETAILS AS MADE AVAILABLE BY YOU FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS CONSTRUED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DA TED 20/06/2016 APPEARS TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE SUBSEQ UENT PARAGRAPHS. 2.0 ON VERIFICATION, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE CASE W AS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR SE LECTION WAS A TRANSFER PRICING RISK PARAMETER NAMELY LARGE SPECI FIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTION (FORM 3CEB) AND THE VALUE OF TRANSACTIO NS ARE:- ITA NO. 881/AHD/19 [ASHISH S. SHAH (HUF) VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 3 - (I) RS.19,36,86,462/- (II) RS.18,000/- THEREFORE, AS PER BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO.3/2016 & F .NO. 500/9/2015- APA-II DATED 10.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE BOARD THE CAS E WAS MANDATORY TO BE REFERRED TO TPO BUT THE SAME WAS NOT DONE. T HE CASE ACCORDINGLY HAD TO BE REFERRED TO TPO. HOWEVER, THIS WAS NOT D ONE EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WAS MANDATORY AS PER SAID INSTRUCTION. THE A.O . HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE REASON FOR SCRUTINY SELECTION AS PER CASS AND FAILED TO CONDUCT NECESSARY ENQUIRY. 3.0 FROM THE DISCUSSION ABOVE, IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 20/06/2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. YOU ARE THEREFORE REQUESTED TO SHOW C AUSE AS TO WHY ACTION U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SHOULD N OT BE INITIATED FOR MODIFYING OR EVEN CANCELLING THE SAID ASSESSMENT OR DER. IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ACTION PROPO SED, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH YOUR AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ON 17.12.2018 AT 4.00 PM AT MY OFFICE SITUATED AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS, ALONGWITH A WRITTEN REPLY TO THIS NOTICE. 3.2 THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER REFE RRED TO PARA 4 OF THE REVISIONAL ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PR.C IT PROCEEDED ON A WRONG FOOTING WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT OR DER COMPLETED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE AO. IT WAS FIRSTL Y POINTED OUT THAT FORM 3CEB WAS DULY FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF I NCOME AND IT WAS INCORRECT FOR THE PR.CIT TO OBSERVE THAT FORM 3 CEB SHOWING PARTICULARS OF SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS ( SDT) REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER S.92E OF THE ACT WAS FILED BEFOR E THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR THE FIRST TIME. IT WAS THUS CONTE NDED THAT FORM 3CEB FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AVAILABLE TO THE AO FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES CONTRARY TO OBSERVATION OF THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER. IT WAS THEREAFTER CONTENDED THAT THE AFORESAID PRES CRIBED FORM WAS FILED ONLY AS A MATTER OF ABUNDANT CAUTION AND WAS ACTUALLY NOT REQUIRED TO BE FILED IN LAW OWING TO THE FACT THAT THE SDT PRIMARILY REPRESENTED SALES MADE TO ASSOCIATE ENTE RPRISE(AE) AMOUNTING TO RS.19,36,86,462/-. THE LEARNED AR SUB MITTED THAT SALES MADE TO AE/SISTER CONCERN DO NOT FALL WITHI N THE SWEEP OF MEANING OF SDT DEFINED UNDER S.92BA(I) OF THE ACT WHICH IS ITA NO. 881/AHD/19 [ASHISH S. SHAH (HUF) VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 4 - NARROWER IN ITS SCOPE AND RELATES TO EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH ANY PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE ETC., BY THE ASSESS EE TO CERTAIN CATEGORY OF PERSONS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 40A(2)(B ) OF THE ACT. IT WAS EMPHATICALLY ASSERTED THAT MAKING SALES TO SIST ER CONCERNS/AE IS TOTALLY DISSIMILAR TO ANY EXPENDITURE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THUS CONTENDED THAT A SALE TRANSA CTION IS OUT OF AMBIT OF ERSTWHILE CLAUSE (I) OF SECTION 92BA OF TH E ACT. 3.3 IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT ENTERED INTO ANY SDT AS SPELT UNDER CLAUSE (II) TO (VI) O F SECTION 92BA OF THE ACT EITHER, AS CAN BE EASILY SEEN FROM THE RETU RN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTERED INTO ANY TRANSACTION SUSCEPTIBLE TO SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. 3.4 THE LEARNED AR THUS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS REPORTED IN FO RM 3CEB ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS SDT IN LAW AT THE FIRST PLACE, THERE WAS NO WARRANT FOR THE AO TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE TPO M ERELY ON ACCOUNT OF A WRONGLY FILED FORM 3CEB IN CONTRADICTION TO TH E STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92BA OF THE ACT. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE TRANSACTIONS FALLING WITHIN T HE SWEEP OF SECTION 92BA OF THE ACT, THERE WAS NO WARRANT EITHE R TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE TPO NOR ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY WAS R EQUIRED BY THE AO FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92 BA OF THE ACT AS REDFLAGGED BY THE PR.CIT. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT NO ERROR PER SE CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE AO FOR NON-INDULGENCE IN INQUIRY WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 92BA OF THE ACT WHICH WAS PRIMA FACIE INAPPLICABLE. 3.5 ON A FURTHER QUERY RAISED BY THE BENCH, THE LEA RNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT REMAINING TRANSAC TION OF RS.18,000/- ODD TOWARDS RENTAL EXPENDITURE ALSO DO NOT FALL WITHIN ITA NO. 881/AHD/19 [ASHISH S. SHAH (HUF) VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 5 - THE AMBIT OF SECTION 92BA OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THR ESHOLD OF RS.5 CRORE PRESCRIBED FOR SECTION 92BA OF THE ACT TO COM E INTO PLAY AT THE RELEVANT TIME. 3.6 THE LEARNED AR FURTHER RAISED A LEGAL GROUND TH AT CLAUSE 92BA(I) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY OMITTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2017 W.E.F. 01.04.2017 FROM THE STATUTE. IT W AS THUS SUBMITTED THAT OWING TO SUCH OMISSION OF CLAUSE (I) TO SECTIO N 92BA OF THE ACT, THE RESULTANT EFFECT WOULD IMPLIEDLY BE THAT I T HAD NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED AS LAW EXISTING IN THE STATUTE SINCE ITS INCEPTION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. TAXPORT OVERSEAS (P.) LTD. [2020] 114 TAXMANN.COM 568 (KARNATAKA) FOR THIS PROPOSITION. IT WAS ARGUED THAT CLAUSE (I) TO SECTION 92BA OF THE ACT WAS REPE ALED AND OBLITERATED FROM THE STATUTE BOOK COMPLETELY WITHOU T ANY SAVING CLAUSE AND THEREFORE IT HAS TO BE DEEMED TO HAVE NE VER EXISTED INSOFAR AS ALL PENDING PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED. IN THIS BACKGROUND, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ANY DELINQUENCY C OMMITTED BY AO WAS REFERENCE TO A REPEALED PROVISION DOES NOT R ENDER THE ACTION OF AO TO BE ERRONEOUS. 3.7 THE LEARNED AR ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE S HOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PR.CIT AND SUBSEQUENT REVISION AL ORDER UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW BOTH ON LEGAL GROUND AS WELL AS ON MERITS. THE LEARNED AR THUS URGED THAT ORDER UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT BE QUASHED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S. 143(3) OF THE ACT BE RESTORED. 4. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AND CONTENDED THAT PR.C IT HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED ITS SACROSANCT JURISDICTION VESTED UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE LEARNED DR ITA NO. 881/AHD/19 [ASHISH S. SHAH (HUF) VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 6 - REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TOTALLY CRYPTIC ON ALL POINTS AND HAS BEEN PASSED BY AO MECHANICALLY WITHOUT ANY REFLECTION OF APPLICATION OF MIND. THE LEARNED DR THEREAFTER SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE THE SU BMISSION OF FORM NO.3CEB BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF, THE AO HAS NOT LOO KED INTO THE SAME AND DID NOT BOTHER TO FOLLOW THE PRESCRIBED PR OCEDURE FOR REFERENCE TO THE TPO NECESSARY FOR SUITABLE INQUIRY . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH NON-DESCRIPT ASSESSMENT ORDER P ASSED FLIPPANTLY IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IT WAS NEXT SUBMITTED THAT THE PR.CIT HAS MERELY SE T ASIDE SUCH A PERFUNCTORY ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR FRESH INQUIRY BY T HE AO TO FRAME ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THUS NO INTER FERENCE WITH SUCH REVISIONAL ACTION IS CALLED FOR. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ASSUMPTION OF REVISIONA RY JURISDICTION UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES NARRATED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AS NOTED IN THE PRECEDING PA RAS. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED B Y THE REVISIONARY COMMISSIONER SEEKING TO DISPLACE THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT IN EXERCISE OF ITS STATUTORY FUNCTIONS IS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL. 5.1 SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION VESTED UNDER SECTION 2 63 OF THE ACT ENABLES THE CONCERNED PCIT/CIT TO REVIEW THE RECORD S OF ANY PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE AO. IT EMPOWERS THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER CONCERNED TO CALL FOR AND E XAMINE THE RECORDS OF ANOTHER PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THEN HE MAY (AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTE R MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSA RY), PASS SUCH ITA NO. 881/AHD/19 [ASHISH S. SHAH (HUF) VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 7 - ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUST IFY, INCLUDING THE ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT OR CANC ELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING AFRESH ASSESSMENT. THUS, THE REVISIONARY POWERS CONFERRED ON THE PCIT/CIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT ARE OF VERY WIDE AMPLITUDE WITH A VIEW TO ADDRESS THE REVE NUE RISKS WHICH ARE OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIABLE. 5.2 BEFORE WE PROCEED TO DWELL UPON THE LEGALITY OF ACTION OF THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, IT WILL BE EXPEDIENT TO RE PRODUCE SECTION 92BA OF THE ACT AS EXISTING IN THE STATUTE AT THE R ELEVANT TIME OF ASSESSMENT WHICH SEEKS TO DEFINE THE MEANING OF SD T: 92BA . FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION AND SECTIONS 92, 92C, 92D AND 92E, 'SPECIFIED DOMESTIC TRANSACTION' IN CASE OF AN ASSESSEE MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING TRANSACTIONS, NOT BEING AN INTERNA TIONAL TRANSACTION, NAMELY :- (I) ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH PAYMENT HA S BEEN MADE OR IS TO BE MADE TO A PERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 40A; (II) ANY TRANSACTION REFERRED TO IN SECTION 80A; (III) ANY TRANSFER OF GOODS OR SERVICES REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (8) OF SECTION 80-IA; (IV) ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSE E AND OTHER PERSON AS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (10) OF SECTION 80-IA ; (V) ANY TRANSACTION, REFERRED TO IN ANY OTHER SE CTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A OR SECTION 10AA. TO WHICH PROVISIONS OF SUB-SE CTION (8) OR SUB-SECTION (10) OF SECTION 80-IA ARE APPLICABLE; O R (VI) ANY OTHER TRANSACTION AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, AND WHERE THE AGGREGATE OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS ENTERE D INTO BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIEWS YEAR EXCEEDS A SUM OF FIVE CRORE RUPEES. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS UNDE R S.92BA FOR REFERENT TO TPO AND OTHER ENQUIRIES CONTEMPLATED IN RESPECT OF SDT WOULD TRIGGER ONLY WHEN A STIPULATED TRANSACTION FA LLS WITHIN THE MEANING OF DEFINITION OF SDT AS PROVIDED UNDER S.92 BA OF THE (SUPRA). ITA NO. 881/AHD/19 [ASHISH S. SHAH (HUF) VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 8 - 5.3 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE SO CALLED SDT UNDER LENS OF THE PR. CIT PRIMARILY REPRESENTS SALE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS SISTE R CONCERN. NATURALLY A SALE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE GETS OUTRIG HTLY EXCLUDED FROM THE AMBIT OF CLAUSE (I) OF SECTION 92BA OF THE ACT WHICH IS MEANT TO DEAL WITH EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE AS SESSEE TO THE BENEFIT OF SISTER CONCERN/AE. WE THEREAFTER NOTICE ASSERTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AVAILED ANY BENEFIT UNDER S.80IA OF THE ACT OR ANY OTHER PROVIS IONS CONTEMPLATED UNDER S.92BA(II) TO (VI) OF THE ACT. A REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE COPY OF RETURN FILED WITH REVENUE TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH CLAIM OF BENEFIT AVAILED WH ILE DETERMINING THE RETURN OF INCOME. WE THUS FIND MERIT IN THE CA SE MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT VARIOUS CLAUSES OF SECTION 92BA O F THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX. AS A COROLLA RY, MERELY BECAUSE A PRESCRIBED FORM NO. 3CEB WAS FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 10E R.W.S. 92BA OF THE ACT WOULD NOT MAKE AN ASSESSEE S USCEPTIBLE TO ONEROUS INVESTIGATION PROCEEDINGS ON SUCH TRANSACTI ONS WHERE THE ASSESSEE PRIMA FACIE DEMONSTRATES THAT SECTION 92BA OF THE ACT IS WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE IN ANY MANNER AT THE FIRST INST ANCE. THE PR.CIT WAS SEIZED WITH THE RELEVANT FACTS AND COULD HAVE E ASILY SATISFIED HIMSELF OF SUCH PRIMA FACIE ASSERTIONS. A LACK OF ENQUIRY IN A PARTICULAR MANNER OR AS PER CERTAIN PROCEDURES PRES CRIBED WOULD POSSIBLY VITIATE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ONLY WHEN IT IS FOUND THAT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS WERE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOT OTHERWISE. THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE PR.CIT IN T HE INSTANT CASE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY REBUTTED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE DOMESTIC TRANSACTION WITH AE NOT FALLING IN THE SWEEP OF SECTION 92BA OF THE ACT AT THE THRESHOLD, ANY ALLEG ED INACTION ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE AO IN THIS REGARD WOULD NOT VIT IATE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS NOR DID IT CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE T O THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ARE THUS ITA NO. 881/AHD/19 [ASHISH S. SHAH (HUF) VS. PR.CIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 9 - CLEARLY NOT FULFILLED. HENCE, REVISIONAL ORDER PAS SED UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER P ASSED UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT REQUIRES TO BE QUASHED. 5.4 HAVING ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION ON MERITS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER UNDER S .263 OF THE ACT, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DWELL UPON A LEGAL GROUND QU ESTIONING EXISTENTIAL POSITION OF CLAUSE (I) OF SECTION 92BA OF THE ACT IN THIS PROCEEDING. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR K EDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 29/06/2020 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29/06/2020