JCIT, Bangalore V. M/s Bhuwalka Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 882/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5587 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DINESHA
• Assessee Lawyers: DR PRA DEEP KUMAR
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Additional evidence; Question of law
• Section: 37; 10; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, B ENGALURU BEFORE S HRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I TA NO. 882 / BANG/2 0 1 6 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 11 - 12 ) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( O SD) , CIRCLE 1(1)(2) , BENGALURU. VS. APPELLANT M/S.BHUWALKA PIPES PVT. LTD. SOLUS , 8 TH FLOOR, E & G, NO.2 1 ST CROSS ROAD, JC ROAD, BENGALURU - 560027. RESPONDENT PAN: AABCB 7778 E APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.DINESHA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : DR.PRA DEEP KUMAR, ADDL.CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 28 / 01 /201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 / 01 /201 8 O R D E R PER I NTURI RAMA RAO, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) - 1, BENGALURU, [LD.CIT(A)] DATED 18/01/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 2. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS OF APPEAL : ITA NO . 882 /BANG/201 6 PAGE 2 OF 9 3. BRIEFLY , THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPAN IES ACT 1956 . I T IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF M.S AND GI PIPES. T HE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 WAS FILED ON 29 /0 9 / 2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6 , 71 , 49 , 820 / - . S UBSEQUENTLY IT WAS REVISED AT RS. 5 ,01, 81 ,60 0 / - . AGA INST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 11(2), BENGALURU VID E ORDER DATED 21 /03/ 2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [ HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] A T TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7 , 92 , 30 , 600 / - . W HILE DOING SO , THE ASSESSING O FFICER MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS : AFTER RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE MOVED A PETITION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DATED 0 3 /0 4 / 2014 PRAYING FOR RECTIF IC ATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR DELETING ADDITIONS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED THERE - IN . THE ASSESSING O FFICER VI DE ORDER DATED 30 /09/ 2014 DELETED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED ITA NO . 882 /BANG/201 6 PAGE 3 OF 9 INVESTMENT OF RS.19,25,195/ - , ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF WDV IN FACT ORY SHED OF RS.1,85,18,538/ - . HOWEVER, HE SUSTAINED ADDITION MADE ON COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RA.5,77,510/ - AND ALSO ADDITION MADE U/S 14 A. 4. B EING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 , OF THE ACT, AN APPEAL WAS PREFE RRED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO, VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER , DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAYMENT . 5. B EING AGGRIEVED BY THIS DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) DELETIN G EDITION ON COMMISSION PAYMENT, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 6. THE LE ARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DELETED ADDITION MADE AT 50% OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SERVICES RENDERED BY CO MMIS S I ON AGENTS, AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUCH AS AGREEMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 7. WE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS WHETHER THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) DELETING AD DITION MADE AN ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAYMENT IS VALID UNDER LAW OR NOT? T HE ASSESSING OFFICER , DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD DISALLOWED 50% OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.1,71,55,020/ - ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAD FAILED TO FURNISH , COPY OF AGREEMENT AND PROOF IN S UPPORT OF SERVICES RENDERED AND BILLS RANGED ETC. O N ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY TO ADDUCE ABOVE EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF B U SINESS AND THEREFORE DISALLOWED 50% OF THE E XPENDITURE HOLDING IT TO BE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY ITA NO . 882 /BANG/201 6 PAGE 4 OF 9 AND EXCLUSIVE LY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS . I T IS ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY FI LED COPIES OF AGREEMEN T GOVERNING C OMMISSION PAYMENT AND COPIES OF BILLS RAISED BY M/S. JINDAL P IPES LTD., TO WHOM C OMMISSION PAYMENT WAS MADE. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 , THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAD MERELY FILED AGREEMENT COPY AND NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPO RT OF SERVICES RENDERED BY SELLING AGENTS WAS FURNISHED. HOWEVER ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE LD. CIT (A) GRANT E D RELIEF HOLDING AS UNDER: 4. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT THEY MAKE PRODUCTS FOR JINDAL BRAND NAME ONLY AND M/S JINDAL PIPES FACILITATE THE ENTIRE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION TO THEIR MARKETING AND DEALER NETWORK. SO THE COMMISSION HAS NECESSARY BE PAID AS PER CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO THERE HAS BEEN NO DISALLOWANCE ON THIS GROUND. THE ADDITIO N OF 50% DISALLOWANCE U/S 37 IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ADDITION IS HEREBY DELETED. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS DRIVEN BY THE FA CT THAT IN EARLIER YEARS, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. THOUGH THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM , THE LD. CIT (A) HAD CHOSEN NOT TO DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE - C OMPANY IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. FURTHE R MORE , THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT MET THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE . I NDISPUTEDLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AD NOT DOUBTED GEN UINENESS OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT . THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE SELLING AND DISTRIBUTION AGENT S AND THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT ETC. IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT FOR ALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAYMENT AS EXPENDITURE, THE CONDIT ION PRECEDENT IS THAT THERE IS PROOF IN SUPPORT OF RENDITION OF SERVICES. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE CAN QUOTE THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. M/S. 3M INDIA LTD., VS. ASST. CIT, LTU, IN IT (TP)A 725/BANG/2011 DATED 13/05/2016 : F OR AL LOWABILITY OF THIS KIND OF EXPENDITURE, CONDITION SINE QUA NON IS PROOF OF ACTUAL SERVICES RENDERED. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF ITA NO . 882 /BANG/201 6 PAGE 5 OF 9 THE TRIBUNAL, TO WHICH ONE OF US I.E. THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IS THE AUTHOR OF THE ORDER, IN THE CASE OF M/S.B FOURESS PVT. LTD. VS . DCIT IN ITA NOS.847 & 847/BANG/2014 DATED 30/12/2015 HELD AS FOLLOWS: ............THUS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE EXPENDITURE LAID OUT WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. WE MAY FURTHER ADD THAT THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (IND.) PVT. LTD (1969) 74 ITR 17 HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY HELD THAT THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN LAID OUT OR INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ENTIRELY LIES ON THE ASSESSEE. THE DISCHARGE OF THE BURDEN HAD TO BE EFFECTIVE AND MEANINGFUL AND NOT TO COVER UP BY MERELY BOOK ENTRIES AND PAPER WORK. THE MERE FACT OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND COMPLIAN CES WITH THE TDS PROVISIONS SHALL NOT ALONE ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNLESS AND AMOUNT HAS BEEN EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 11. A CO - ORDINATE BENCH TRIBUNAL OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF KANU KITCHEN KULTURE (P)LT D VS DCIT (2013) 28 ITR (T) 49 (DEL. - TRIB.) HELD THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION AGENT, THE COMMISSION WAS DISALLOWED. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE JUDGMENT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW; 22. THUS THE ASSESSEE AS UTTERLY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SERVICE RENDERED BY THE AGENT AND AVAILED OF BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS BUSINESS OF MODULAR KITCHEN. IN THIS SCENARIO WHAT APPEARS ON RECORD IS MERELY BOOK ENTRIES COUPLED WITH TDS THE AMOUNT WHICH W ILL BE CLAIMED AS A REFUND BY THE RECIPIENT BEING A LOSS MAKING CONCERN. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ONLY SKELETAL PAPER WORK OF THE ARRANGEMENT WITHOUT ANY IOTA OF EVIDENCE ABOUT ACTUAL BUSINESS SERVICES RENDERED. 23. THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM FOR ALLOWING SIMILAR COMMISSION PAYMENT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR CARIES NO MERIT INASMUCH AS THE LEARNED DR HAS RIGHTLY PLEADED THAT EACH AND EVERY YEAR OF ASSESSMENT IS SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT UNIT AND PRINCIPLES OF RESJUDICATA DO NOT APPLY. THE ASSESSM ENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IS UNDER SECTION 143(1) AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE COMMISSION AT ALL. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO GIVE EVIDENCED TO THE FACTS WHOSE RECORD IS NOT BEFORE US AND NOT REFERRED TO BEFO RE TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES . ITA NO . 882 /BANG/201 6 PAGE 6 OF 9 12. SIMILARLY, THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC (IND.) LTD VS CIT (21008) 304 ITR 360 (DEL.) HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAD PROCU RED THE SALE ORDERS, NO COMMISSION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED BELOW; 13. WE AGREE WITH THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT M/S RAM AGENCIES HAD PROCURED ANY SALE ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE PRODUCTION OF A FEW BILLS OR PAYMENT HAVING BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES CANNOT BY ITSELF SHOW THAT M/S RAM AGENCIES HAD PROCURED SALE ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM AN INTERNAL NOTE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CORRESPONDENCE OR ANY PERSONAL; MEETINGS ETC. BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S RAM AGENCIES TO SUGGEST THAT THE WAS ANY RELATIONSHIP ON THE BASIS OF WHICH M/S RAM AGENCIES PROCURED SOME ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH IT WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COMMISSION. MOREOVER, WE F IND THAT THE UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS AN ORAL UNDERSTANDING AND IT APPEARS TO BE DOUBTFUL THAT SUCH AN ORAL UNDERSTANDING CAN BE ARRIVED AT WITHOUT ANY LONG STANDING RELATIONSHIP HAVING BEEN ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S RAM AGENCIE S. IT SEEMS A BIT OUT OF PLACE THAT THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO AN ORAL BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING SUCH HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME . 13 . THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF PRINTER HOUSE PVT .LTD. VS DCIT (DEL.) AUTHORED BY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AFTER REFERRING TO THE ABOVE PRECEDENCE ON THIS ISSUE HELD AS FOLLOWS: THUS, HAVING REGARD TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASES THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF IN SUPPORT OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION AGENT, NO COMMISS ION CAN BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAD NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS LYING UPON IT TO PROVE THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION AGENT AND ALSO FAILED TO FILE COPIES OF AGREEMENT. IT IS ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 , THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COPIES OF AGREEMENT ALONE. THE SCOPE AN D AMBIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 IS CLEARLY EXPLAINED ITA NO . 882 /BANG/201 6 PAGE 7 OF 9 BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. VOLKART BROS. (82 ITR 50) AS FOLLOWS: . . . . . . . IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER TO GO INTO THE TRUE SCOPE OF THE RELEVANT PROVISION S OF THE ACT IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. AS SEEN EARLIER, THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY OPINED THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW THOUGH IN OUR OPINION THE HIGH COURT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GOING INTO THAT QUESTION. IN SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN HEGDE V . MALLIKARJUNBHAVANAPPA TIRUMALE [I960] 1 SCR 890, THIS COURT WHILE SPELLING OUT THE SCOPE OF THE POWER OF A HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION RULED THAT AN ERROR WHICH HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS WHE RE THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD SEE SIDHRAMAPPA ANDANNAPPAMANVI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [1952] 21 ITR 333 (BOM.) . THE POWER OF THE OFFICERS MENTIONED IN SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, TO CORRECT 'ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD' IS UNDOUBTEDLY NOT MORE THAN THAT OF THE HIGH COURT TO ENTERTAIN A WRIT PETITION ON THE BASIS OF AN 'ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD.' . . . . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE ASSESSEE - CO MPANY MERELY SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM MADE. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE SUFFICIENCY OR OTHERWISE OF EVIDENCE FURNISHED IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 154, IT IS SUFFICE TO SAY THAT IT DOES NOT FORM PART OF RECORD AND THEREFORE, QUESTION OF RECTIFYING MISTAKE THEREON DOES NOT ARISE. FURTHERMORE, WHEN A CLAIM WAS MADE AND IT WAS DISALLOWED BY GIVING REASONS, THE CLAIM CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 154. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE MADHYA PRADES H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMOLAKCHAND KEWALCHAND VS. CIT (188 ITR 127) , PARSHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD. VS. WTO (100 ITR 651)(GUJ), BHAGWANDAS KEVALDAS VS. N.D.MEHROTRA (36 ITR 538)(BOM) AND STANDARD RADIATORS VS. CIT (165 ITR 178)(GUJ) . I N THE CASE OF ITA NO . 882 /BANG/201 6 PAGE 8 OF 9 AMOLAKCHAND KEWALCHAND ( SUPRA) T HE HON BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS: LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT WHEN A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80J WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURNS, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE INCOME - TAX OFF ICER TO CALL UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH REQUISITE DETAILS SO AS TO ENTITLE IT TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 J OF THE ACT. IT WAS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER CALLED UPON TO FURNISH SUCH DETA ILS AND, THEREFORE, A CASE FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WAS MADE OUT. WE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED DETAILS AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 80J(4) OF THE ACT BESIDES MAKING A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 80 J, IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT A CASE FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WAS MADE OUT. BUT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED AND, THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT ANY ERROR WAS APPARENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORD ERS REQUIRING RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE FAILURE OF THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER TO CALL UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS FOR SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80J(4) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ERROR JU STIFYING RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154. ASSUMING THAT SUCH FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER AMOUNTED TO AN ERROR ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE RECTIFICATION ORDERS DO NOT DISCLOSE THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT WAS CURED BY CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE REQUISITE DETAILS FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 80J(4) OF THE ACT IN RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. ON THE CONTRARY, THE RECTIFICATION ORDERS SHOWED THAT THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER PROCEEDED TO MA KE THE RECTIFICATION ORDERS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 80J(4) WERE FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID QUESTION OF LAW DESERVES TO BE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVEN UE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ANSWER THE QUESTION AS FOLLOWS : THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER WAS NOT RIGHT IN LAW IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80J OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, IN THE RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS TAKEN UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM U/S 154. THE LD.CIT(A), WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE AMBIT AND SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 HAD GRANTED RELIEF WITHOUT DISCUSSING ANY EVIDENCE FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM AND MEETING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED ITA NO . 882 /BANG/201 6 PAGE 9 OF 9 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY , 2018 SD/ - SD/ - ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : BENGALUR U. DATED : 31 / 01 /201 8 SRINIVASULU, SPS COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE