Sameer Gupta, Bhopal V. Pr. C I T (Central), Bhopal, Bhopal

ITA 896/Ind/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0955 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S MANTRI
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA A RS; ASISH GOYAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Earning of tax free income; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 13; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.896/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 APPELLANT BY S/ SHRI ASISH GOYAL & N.D. PATWA , ARS REVENUE BY SHRI S.S. MANTRI, CIT DATE OF HEARING 0 5 .0 3 .2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01 .0 6 .2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT FRAMED BY LD. PR. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) (IN SHORT LD.PCIT], BHOPAL DATED 28.09. 2018. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL; SHRI SAMEER GUPTA, E-5/95, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL VS. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (REVENUE ) PAN NO. A AYPG5997L ITANO.896/IND/2018 SAMEER GUPTA 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE: - 1. THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 263 BY THE PRINCIPA L COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'P R CIT') AND THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 ARE ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AN D WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, PR. CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ASSUMING JURISDICT ION IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 263, MORE SO WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PA SSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 3. THAT THE ID PR. CIT (CENTRAL) ERRED IN FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THAT THE ID AO DID NOT VERIFIED THE CASH DEPO SITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 29,40,OOO/-IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION AND FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THAT PR.CIT HAS ERRED ON FACT AND IN LAW IN NOT APP RECIATING THAT THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS HELD BY APPELLANT ALONG WI TH LEDGER ACCOUNTS SHOWING NARRATION OF EACH ENTRY WAS ON RECORD DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, HENCE THE ASSESSMENT IS NEITHER ERRONEO US NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE APPELLANT CARVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FROM THE R ECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM BU SINESS AND OTHER SOURCES. HE IS PARTNER IN VARIOUS FIRMS NAME LY M/S FORTUNE ASSOCIATES, M/S FORTUNE BUILDERS, M/S FORTUNE SOUMY A HOUSING AND M/S FORTUNE REALTY. RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 6,45,210/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 WAS FILE D ON 26.03.2015. CASE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CAS S FOLLOWED BY SERVING OF VALID NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1)OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AT R S.6,45,210/- HOWEVER LD. PR. CIT ON VERIFICATION OF RECORDS OBSE RVED THAT THE ITANO.896/IND/2018 SAMEER GUPTA 3 ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.29, 40,000/- BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THIS ISSUE A ND THUS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDIC IAL AND HE THUS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER VIDE ORDER U/S 263 O F THE ACT DATED 28.09.2018 FOR EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED C ASH DEPOSIT. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L AGAINST THE ORDER ISSUED BY LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT HOLD ING THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 08.11.2016 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND IS LIABL E TO BE SET ASIDE AND THUS ERRED BY GIVING DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUES OF NON-VE RIFICATION OF SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.29,40,000/- MADE DURIN G FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRIN G TO THE SYNOPSIS AND PAPER BOOK FILED ON 01.01.2020 AS WELL AS 07.02 .2020 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS ABOUT THE CASH DEPOSIT. NECESSARY REPLIES WERE FURN ISHED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH DETAILS INCLUDING COPIES OF CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHEREIN TH E ASSESSEE IS PARTNER, CASH BOOK SHOWING THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN VARIOUS DATES. ITANO.896/IND/2018 SAMEER GUPTA 4 ALL THESE DETAILS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND AFTER BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. CIT VS. MEHROTRA BROTHERS 270 ITR 157(MP, HIGH C OURT) 2. KRISHNA CAPBOX (P.) LTD. (2015) 372 ITR 310 (ALL AHABAD) 5. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT CONTENDI NG THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY ENQUIRY A BOUT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED DURING THE YEAR. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GRO UNDS OF APPEAL, BUT SOLE ISSUE IS CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF L D. PR. CIT(CENTRAL) INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT A ND WRONGLY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DA TED 08.11.2016 HOLDING IT TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF REVENUE. LD. PR. CIT DURING THE VERIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT R ECORDS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK AM OUNTING TO RS.29,40,000/- DURING THE YEAR AND THAT THE EXPLANA TION REGARDING ITANO.896/IND/2018 SAMEER GUPTA 5 SUCH HUGE CASH DEPOSITS WAS NEITHER FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE NOR CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 0 2.08.2018 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE CALLING FOR THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.29,40,000/- ALLEGING T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONDUCT ENQUIRY ABOUT THESE CASH DEPOSITS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE GAVE DETAILED REPLY SUBMITTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED EXEMPT INCOME INCLUDING SHA RE OF PROFIT FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM. TOTAL EXEMPT INCOME EARNED F OR A.Y. 2014- 15 IS RS.3,14,93,363/- AND THE OTHER TAXABLE INCOME IS RS.6,45,210/-. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DETAILED ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED AND ALL DETAILS WERE FILED ON VARIOUS DAT ES WHICH ALSO INCLUDED THE CASH BOOK AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF PARTN ERSHIP FIRMS TO SUPPORT THE FACT THAT THE REGULAR TRANSACTIONS OF C ASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWAL TOOK PLACE DURING THE YEAR CASH AMOUNT WAS REGULARLY RECEIVED FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRMS AND THE SOURCE OF D EPOSIT OF CASH IN BANK IS FROM THE CASH AVAILABLE IN THE REGULAR CASH BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THESE DETAILS WERE NOT ITANO.896/IND/2018 SAMEER GUPTA 6 SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO SATISFY THE LD. PR. CIT. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, ON EXAMI NATION OF DETAILS, WE FOUND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDING NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 13.04.2016 WAS I SSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS NOTICE 15 TYPES OF DETAI LS WERE CALLED OUT OF WHICH ONE RELATED TO SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF MORE THAN RS.20,000/- IN THE BANK. FIRST REPLY TO THIS NOTICE WAS FILED ON 13.04.2016 AND THEREAFTER ANOTHER REPLY WAS FILED O N 28.04.2016 IN WHICH THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT WERE FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. COPIES OF PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN BO OKS OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM WERE ALSO FILED. NARRATION OF EAC H ENTRY WAS MENTIONED IN THE CASH BOOK SUBMITTED BEFORE ASSESSI NG OFFICER RUNNING FROM PAGES 25 TO 29. THERE ARE REGULAR TRAN SACTIONS OF CASH RECEIPTS AND CASH PAYMENTS. THERE IS NO NEGATIVE BA LANCE AT ANY PARTICULAR DATE. SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.29,40 ,000/- IS GENERALLY FROM THE CASH RECEIVED FROM PARTNERSHIP F IRMS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER AND OUT OF THE ACCUMULATED BA LANCE AVAILABLE ON VARIOUS DATES. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONS IDERING THESE DETAILS ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION AND WAS SATISFIED W ITH THE SOURCE ITANO.896/IND/2018 SAMEER GUPTA 7 OF CASH DEPOSITS. THUS THE CASE BEFORE US IS NOT TH E CASE WHERE NO ENQUIRY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 9. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONDUCTED DETAILED ENQUIRY AND WAS SATISFIED WITH THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.29, 40,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. PR. CIT COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS WERE AGAIN FILED AND SUMMARY OF SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS ON SIX INSTANCES WHICH TOTAL TO RS.29,40,000/- IS R EPRODUCED BELOW: DATE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT SOURCE OF DEPOSIT 03.10.2013 5,00,000 OUT OF CASH BALANCE LYING IN TH E CASH BOOK 04.10.2013 2,80,000 OUT OF CASH BALANCE LYING IN TH E CASH BOOK 20.11.2013 6,10,000 OUT OF CASH BALANCE LYING IN TH E CASH BOOK PARTICULARLY BY WITHDRAWING RS.6,50,000/- FROM THE BANK ON 12.11.2013 03.01.2014 2,00,000 OUT OF CASH BALANCE LYING IN TH E CASH BOOK PARTICULARLY BY WITHDRAWING RS.4,50,000/- FROM THE BANK ON 01.01.2014 24.03.2014 4,50,000 OUT OF CASH BALANCE LYING IN TH E CASH BOOK PARTICULARLY BY WITHDRAWING RS.5,00,000/- FROM THE BANK ON 26.02.2014 29.03.2014 9,00,000 OUT OF CASH BALANCE LYING IN TH E CASH BOOK PARTICULARLY BY ITANO.896/IND/2018 SAMEER GUPTA 8 WITHDRAWING MONEY ON DIFFERENT DATED FROM THE SAME BANK. 10. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE FACTS PLACE D BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT AS FAR AS THE ISSUES OF SOURCE OF CASH DE POSIT OF RS.29,40,000/-, IS CONCERNED SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAI SED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH DETAILED REPLY WAS FILED ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH ARE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH T O EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. THE EXERCISE HAS BEEN RIGH TLY CARRIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE FRAMING ASSESSMENT. 11. NOW IN THIS SITUATION WHETHER LD. PR. CIT WAS J USTIFIED INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT? WE OBSERVE TH AT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MEHROTRA BROTHERS 270 ITR 157(MP) HAS HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ENQUIRIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN EXPLANAT ION BY A LETTER IN WRITING AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWS THE CLAIM ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAU SE IN HIS ORDER HE DOES NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGAR D. ITANO.896/IND/2018 SAMEER GUPTA 9 12. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA CAPBOX(P) LTD. (2015) 372 ITR 310(ALLAHABAD) HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER CERTAIN QUERIES FROM ASSESSE E MERE NON- DISCUSSION OR NON-MENTION THEREOF IN ASSESSMENT ORD ER COULD NOT LEAD TO ASSUMPTION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND; INVOKING OF REVISION PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 263 ON SAID GR OUND WAS UNJUSTIFIED. 13. WE ALSO FIND THAT RECENTLY COORDINATE BENCH, KO LKATA IN THE CASE OF SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA VS. PR. CIT VIDE ITANO.2574 TO 2576/KOL/2018 ORDER DATED 22.11.2019 ADJUDICATING SIMILAR ISSUE LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT WHEREIN ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EVEN IF INADEQUATE, THAT WOU LD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE LD. PR. CIT TO INTERDICT AND INTERF ERE BY EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION MERELY BECAUSE HE IS OF THE OPINION THAT SOME MORE ENQUIRIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED IN THE MA TTER . SIMILARLY, COORDINATE BENCH, VISHAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF SHRINIVASA HAIR INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT VIDE ITANO.194/VIZ/2018 ORDER DATED 03.01.2019 OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD. PR. CIT FOR REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT WERE EXAMINED BY TH E ASSESSING ITANO.896/IND/2018 SAMEER GUPTA 10 OFFICER AT THE TIME OF MAKING ASSESSMENT IN DETAIL AND WAS SATISFIED REGARDING THE CORRECTNESS AND SINCE THERE IS NO EVI DENCE TO SHOW THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED THE ENQUIRY AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT ON ANY OF THE ISSUES, THE SUSPICION OF THE LD. PR. CIT CANNOT BE A CASE FOR REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 14. EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING A TA XABLE INCOME OF RS.6,45,210/- AND EXEMPTED INCOME OF RS.3,14,93,363 /- DURING THE YEAR WHICH MAJORLY COMPRISE OF PROFIT FROM PARTNERS HIP FIRM TOTALLING TO RS.2,96,41,668/- AND HAD SUFFICIENT CA SH IN HAND ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE YEAR OUT OF WHICH THE AMOU NTS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE MAJOR SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. A LL THESE DETAILS OF CASH RECEIVED FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND THE AMOU NT DEPOSITED IS THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE PLACED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND AFTER EXAMINATION OF THESE DETAILS ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLET ED. 15. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BODY OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER DID NOT RECORD ANY OBSERVATION REGARDING THE TRANSACTION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK BUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISS UED DURING THE ITANO.896/IND/2018 SAMEER GUPTA 11 COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND VARIOUS REPLIE S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING SPECIFIC QUERY IS RAISED REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK, CALLING OF BANK STATEMENTS AND OTHER STATEMENT. TO THIS SPECIF IC QUERY THERE IS A SPECIFIC REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH DEM ONSTRATES THAT AFTER RECEIVING THE INFORMATION THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD APPLIED HIS MIND ON THESE TRANSACTIONS. MORE OVER THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS GIVEN A SWIPING STATEMENT THAT TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSE SSEE AND THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM (WHEREIN ASSESSEE IS PARTNER) WAS EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL WITHOUT REBUTTING THE ENTRI ES MADE IN THE CASH BOOK BY THE ASSESSEE DULY SUPPORTED BY OTHER I NDEPENDENT EVIDENCE. HERE, WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA (2011) 335 ITR 83 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD DISMISSING THE APPEAL THAT THE PRESENT CASE WOULD NOT BE ONE OF, LACK OF INQUIRY EVEN IF THE INQUIRY WAS TERMED INADEQUATE. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT COMPLETE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT HE APPL IED HIS MIND TO THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AND FACT, ALTHOUGH SUCH APPLICATI ON OF MIND IS NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT, THE COMMISSIONER IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 ALSO HAD ALL THESE ITANO.896/IND/2018 SAMEER GUPTA 12 DETAILS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM, BUT NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT DEFECTS CONCLUSIVELY IN THE MATERIAL, FOR ARRIV ING AT A CONCLUSION THAT PARTICULAR INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON AC COUNT OF NON- APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT AND THE ORDER OF REVISION WAS NOT VALID. 16. THE ABOVE JUDGMENT SQUARELY APPLIES ON THE FACT S OF INSTANT CASE AND THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT S INCE SUFFICIENT ENQUIRY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE LD. AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUES RA ISED BY THE LD. PR. CIT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THUS HOLD THAT LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTIO N U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND INFERRING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO T CONDUCTED ENQUIRY. WE, FURTHER HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 08.11.2016 IS NEITHER ERRON EOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY , THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS QUASHED AN D ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 08.11.2016 IS RES TORED. ITANO.896/IND/2018 SAMEER GUPTA 13 17. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.06.2 020. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 1 ST JUNE, 2020 PATEL/PS COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE