M/s Shanti Transport, Warangal V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kothagudem

ITA 995/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 99522514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SOMASEKHAR REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: G MANIKYA PRASAD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Assessment record
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 995/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S SHANTI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM PAN AAQFS 2913 L INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KOTHAGUDEM. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI G. MANIKYA PRASAD REVENUE BY SHRI P. SOMA SEKHAR REDDY DATE OF HEARING 11-09-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10-10-2014 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ORDER DATED 26/0 3/14 OF CIT, VIJAYAWADA PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT REVISING THE A SSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, ASSESSEE A PARTNERSHIP FI RM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS AS A TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR. FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/09/09 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,40,140. IN COURSE O F SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, AS IT APPEARS FROM THE ASSES SMENT ORDER, AO AFTER EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND INFORMATIO NS CALLED FOR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, NOTICED THAT THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS TOWARDS LORRY HIRE CHARGES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY PR OPER VOUCHERS. MOST OF THE EXPENDITURE WERE SUPPORTED BY SELF-MADE VOUCHERS ONLY, 2 ITA NO.995/HYD/2014 M/S SHANTI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM WHICH ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT A S THE MAJOR PART OF THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER BILLS AN D VOUCHERS AND THEREBY NOT VERIFIABLE, THE GENUINENESS AND QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AND AUTHENTICITY OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTA INED BY ASSESSEE ARE ALSO SUSPECT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AO FORMED AN OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , THEY CANNOT BE RELIED UPON THEREBY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT, REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PROCEEDED TO ESTI MATE THE INCOME. AO NOTED, ON THE REPORTED GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,0 7,33,505, THE INCOME DECLARED BY ASSESSEE WORKS OUT TO 8.32%, WH ICH ACCORDING TO AO WAS ON THE LOWER SIDE. HE, THEREFORE, ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM THE TRANSPORT CONTRACT AT 10% OF THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND THEREAFTER ALLOWED DEDUCTION TOWARDS REMUNERATION A ND INTEREST PAYMENT TO PARTNERS AND THEREBY DETERMINED THE TOTA L INCOME AT RS. 5,20,300. 3. THE CIT INVOKING HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT C ALLED FOR THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF ASSESSEE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE FOR THE FOLLOWING REAS ONS: 1. IT IS OBSERVED FROM P&L A/C THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS . 6,73,710 WAS ADMITTED AS INCOME TOWARDS PROCLAINER PRIVATE WORKS RECEIPTS. THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED WHETHER TH E PROCLAINERS WERE GIVEN FOR RENT/LEASE AND IF ANY AG REEMENT HAS BEEN PREVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS NOT VERIFIED THE B ANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH SBH WHEREIN HUGE AMOUNTS WERE RECEI VED FROM DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 50,27,811. FURT HER IT IS NOTICED THAT HUGE AMOUNTS WERE TRANSFERRED AND WITH DRAWN ON DIFFERENT DATES BY WAY OF EITHER CASH CHEQUES OR TR ANSFER TO OTHER ACCOUNTS WHICH ATTRACTS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF IT ACT. 3. MOREOVER, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,30,000 WAS PAID TO ONE OF THE PARTNERS NAMED SMT. B. LALITHA KUMAR AND THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED WHETHER THIS WITHDRAWAL BY THE PARTNER HAS BEEN AFFECTED WHILE CALCULATING INTEREST ON CAPITAL. 4. AS PER P&L A/C AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,91,564 DEBITED TOWARDS INTEREST PAID OTHER THAN INTEREST PAID TO T HE PARTNERS 3 ITA NO.995/HYD/2014 M/S SHANTI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM AND THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE A PPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE IYT ACT. 5. AS PER COL.NO. 27 A&B OF 3CD REPORT, IT IS MENTI ONED THAT NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED ON LORRY HIRE CHARGES AND THIS ASPECT WAS NOT VERIFIED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, HE ISSUED A NOTICE TO ASSESSEE REQUIR ING HIM TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED SHALL NOT B E REVISED. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY CIT, ASSESS EE SUBMITTED HIS REPLY STATING THEREIN THAT ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AFTER IN DEPTH SCRUTINY BY AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AO HEARD THE MATTER ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND AFTER MAKING THOROUGH ENQUIRY AND EXA MINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER INFORMATIONS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT VERIFI ABLE AND ACCORDINGLY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PROCEEDE D FOR ESTIMATION OF PROFIT BY APPLYING REASONABLE RATE, HENCE, IT CA NNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS WITHOUT PROPER ENQUIRY O R NON-APPLICATION OF MIND. REPLYING TO EACH INDIVIDUAL ISSUE RAISED I N THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THOSE ISSUES WE RE EXAMINED BY AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND SINCE H E PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ADDITION ON INDIVIDUAL ISSUES IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE AP HIGH COURT IN CASE OF I NDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CIT, 232 ITR 776. THE CIT, HOWEVE R, REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE, HELD THAT AS AO HAS N OT EXAMINED THE ISSUES AS MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BY MAKING PROPER ENQUIRY, ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS ERRONEOUS AND P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT SET ASID E THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: 6. FOR THE PURPOSES OF INVOKING THE JURISDICTION U/ S 263, IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY SHOULD AP PLY THE TESTS AS TO WHETHER SUCH AN ORDER CONTAINS SOME APPARENT ERROR OF REASONING OR OF LAW OR OF THE FACT ON THE FACE OF I T AND ALSO WHETHER IT IS AN ORDER WHEREIN THE AO SIMPLY ACCEPT ED WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN ITS RETURN &/OR IN THE OTHER PARTICULARS AND FAILED TO MAKE EXAMINATION/VERIFICATION/ENQUIRI ES WHICH ARE CALLED FOR ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHICH HE AS 4 ITA NO.995/HYD/2014 M/S SHANTI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM AN INVESTIGATOR OF THAT CASE WAS DUTY BOUND TO DO. IN THIS CASE, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THAT THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ABOVE ISSUES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECOR D WHICH ARE CALLED FOR ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NARRA TED ABOVE, AND HENCE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOU S AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THE ASSESS MENT ORDER DATED 31/05/2011 IS SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO T HE AO FOR REDOING THE ASSESSMENT, DENOVO, AS INDICATED, SUPRA , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW & ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE ON SUCH MATTERS AND AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED AR MORE OR LESS REITERATING THE SUBMISS IONS MADE DURING REVISIONAL PROCEEDING BEFORE CIT, CONTENDED THAT AO AFTER EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER INFORMATIO NS AVAILABLE ON RECORD HAVING COME TO A DEFINITE CONCLUSION THAT BO OKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT RELIABLE, REJECTING THE SAME PROCEEDED TO ESTIM ATE THE PROFIT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE AO REJECTS THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT THE ONLY COURSE LEFT OPEN IS TO ESTIMATE PROFIT. THEREFORE, WHEN THE AO HAS ADOPTED THAT COURSE, CIT CANNOT SIT IN JUDGMENT OVE R THE DECISION TAKEN BY AO AND SAY THAT AO SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED TH E INDIVIDUAL ISSUES POINTED OUT BY HIM DURING REVISION PROCEEDIN G. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT RELI ABLE AND REJECTED, THE SAME CANNOT AGAIN BE EXAMINED/RELIED UPON BY AO . THEREFORE, HAVING REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HE HAS CORREC TLY PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT CIT HIMSELF HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR BY CONSIDERING THE FIGURES IN P& L A/C AND RECEIPTS RELATING TO AY 2008-09 WHEREAS THE REVISION IS IN R ESPECT OF 2009-10. IN THIS CONTEXT, LEARNED AR SPECIFICALLY DREW OUR A TTENTION TO PARA 5.1 OF THE REVISION ORDER. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT AS THE AO HAS EXAMINED ALL THE ISSUES AND PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE T HE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THER E IS NO NEED FOR HIM TO GO INTO THE INDIVIDUAL ISSUES AGAIN, AS POIN TED BY CIT. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE CIT HAS HELD THE ASSES SMENT ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF RE VENUE BY RAISING VARIOUS ISSUES, BUT, HE HAS NOT GIVEN A DEFINITE FI NDING OR CONCLUSION 5 ITA NO.995/HYD/2014 M/S SHANTI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM ON THE BASIS OF ANY ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY HIM TO ES TABLISH THAT NON- CONSIDERATION OF THOSE ISSUES ACTUALLY RENDERED THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS OR ANY PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO REVENUE. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED R, CIT WAS NOT CORRECT IN EXERCISING POWER U/S 263, OF THE ACT. 5. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT PE RUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ATTEN TION TO THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY CIT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS WELL AS REVISION ORDER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). I N THIS CONTEXT, LEARNED DR SPECIFICALLY REFERRED THE OBSERVATIONS I N PARA 5.8 OF CIT. LEARNED DR SUBMITTED AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES N OT REVEAL ANY ENQUIRY BY AO WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ISSUES POINTE D BY CIT, ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTERESTS OF REVENUE THEREBY NECESSITATING ACTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO APPLIED OUR MIND TO DECISIONS RELIED U PON BY LEARNED AR. AS IS EVIDENT FROM RECORD, AO IN COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDING, AFTER EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D OTHER INFORMATIONS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED ARE NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE, WHICH ALSO RAISE D SUSPICION WITH REGARD TO MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL A S ITS CORRECTNESS. THEREFORE, BEING OF THE OPINION THAT BOOKS OF ACCOU NT ARE NOT VERIFIABLE, AO PROCEEDED TO REJECT THE SAME AND EST IMATE THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE @ 10% ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS. ON A PERUS AL OF REVISION ORDER, WE FIND THAT CIT IN SPECIFIC TERMS HAS NOT D ISAPPROVED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY AO. THE CIT HAS PO INTED OUT VARIOUS ISSUES, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WAS NOT EXAMINED BY AO IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. HOWEVER, WHEN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT WERE FOUND TO BE NOT RELIABLE AND REJECTED BY AO AND HE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3), IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD HOW AND WHY AO 6 ITA NO.995/HYD/2014 M/S SHANTI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM SHOULD HAVE GONE INTO THE SPECIFIC ISSUES ON THE BA SIS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FURTHER, CIT HIMSELF HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 5.6 OF THE ORDER THAT THOUGH AO HAS CALLED UPON ASSESSEE IN HIS LETT ER DATED 06/01/11 TO FURNISH VARIOUS INFORMATION BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY TO THE SAME. IN OUR VIEW, THAT ITSELF IS REASON ENOUGH FOR THE AO TO REJECT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATE THE INCOME. WHEN ASSE SSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH INFORMATIONS/EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT THE EN TRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THERE IS NO OTHER COURSE LEFT OPE N TO AO, BUT, TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. O NCE, AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THERE IS NO NEED TO A GAIN REFER TO THE VERY SAME BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR DECIDING THE INDIVID UAL ISSUES OF EXPENDITURE/DEDUCTION CLAIMED. THEREFORE, IN OUR VI EW, CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO INVOKE POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY HOL DING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. FURTHER, CIT THOUGH RAISED CERTAIN ISSUES, WHICH AC CORDING TO HIM WERE NOT EXAMINED BY AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN G, BUT, HE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED OR SUBSTANTIATED WITH FACTS AND MAT ERIALS THAT NON- CONSIDERATION OF THOSE ISSUES HAS ADVERSELY AFFECTE D THE INTERESTS AND REVENUE OR HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS. WHILE CONDUCTING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, AO IS THE BEST JU DGE OF THE SITUATION AND HAS TO PROCEED FOR COMPLETING ASSESSM ENT ACCORDING TO HIS OWN WISDOM. IN THE FACTS OF A GIVEN CASE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM, WHEN THE AO HAS COM E TO A CONCLUSION THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE ARE NO T VERIFIABLE, HENCE, PROFIT HAS TO BE ESTIMATED AFTER REJECTING T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD HOW SUCH VIEW OF AO CAN BE HEL D TO BE ERRONEOUS. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT CIT CAN EXERCISE POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON SATISFACTION OF TWO CONDITIONS CUMULATIV ELY, WHICH ARE, THE ORDER PASSED MUST BE ERRONEOUS AND IT MUST BE PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THEREFORE, BEFORE REVISING TH E ORDER U/S 263, CIT MUST ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS, BUT, HAS ALSO CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ON PERUSAL OF REVISION ORDER, IT APPE ARS THAT CIT HIMSELF 7 ITA NO.995/HYD/2014 M/S SHANTI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM IS NEITHER SURE NOR CERTAIN OR HAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ISSUES ON WHICH HE HAS SOUGHT TO REVISE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE RESULTED IN A SSESSMENT OF INCOME AT THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THAT BEING THE CA SE, THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 263 CANNOT BE USED AS A TOOL TO START ROVING AND FISHING ENQUIRY. CIT MUST HAVE STRONG MATERIAL/EVIDENCE BEF ORE HIM, WHICH COULD INDICATE THAT NON-CONSIDERATION OF THOSE ISSU ES HAS NOT ONLY MADE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS, BUT, HAS ALSO CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. UNLESS THERE ARE MATERIAL TO INDICATE TO THAT EFFECT, ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT B E HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE EMPOWERING CIT TO REVISE IT U/S 263. IN THIS CONTEXT, A REFERE NCE CAN BE MADE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CAS E OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX VS. JYOTHI FOUNDATIONS, 357 ITR 388 WHER EIN THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AFTER ANALYZING SEVERAL OTHER DECI SIONS HELD THAT IF THE REVISING AUTHORITY FEELS THAT AO HAS NOT CONDUC TED PROPER/ADEQUATE ENQUIRY, THEN, HE HIMSELF SHOULD HA VE CONDUCTED ENQUIRY TO RECORD A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WAS ERRONEOUS. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DIRECTED THE AO TO DO THE SAID ENQUIRY. FURTHER, IN CASE OF CIT VS. RAMESH SI NG, THE HONBLE MP HIGH COURT IN JUDGMENT DATED 24/04/2012, HELD TH AT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT AO HAS CONDUCTED ENQU IRY, IT CANNOT BE SET ASIDE/REVISED ONLY BECAUSE THE CIT FEELS THA T ENQUIRY CONDUCTED IS NOT ADEQUATE. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRES ENT CASE, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT AO AFTER EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT AND OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD HAS COME TO A DEFINITE CONCLUSI ON THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT RELIABLE, HENCE, AFTER REJECTING TH E SAME HAS ESTIMATED THE PROFIT. IN FACT, THE CIT HIMSELF OBS ERVED THAT AO VIDE LETTER DATED 06/01/11 HAD CALLED UPON ASSESSEE TO P RODUCE EVIDENCES AND TO CLARIFY CERTAIN ISSUES. THAT BEING THE CASE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY AND THERE IS NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY AO. FURTHER, CIT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE AS SESSMENT ORDER HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION, BUT, HAS SIMPLY DIRECTED THE 8 ITA NO.995/HYD/2014 M/S SHANTI TRANSPORT, KOTHAGUDEM AO TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT DENOVO AFTER EXAMINING T HE ISSUES. THIS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IS NOTHING BUT IN THE NATUR E OF ROVING AND FISHING ENQUIRY. FURTHER, ONE MORE ASPECT NEEDS TO BE MENTIONED, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY LEARNED AR, CIT IN PARA 5.1 OF THE ORDER HAS CONSIDERED THE P&L ACCOUNT AND FIGURES RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WHEREAS HE IS IN SESSION OF REVISION PROCEE DING FOR AY 2009- 10. THIS ITSELF SHOWS NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY L EARNED CIT. FOR THIS REASON ALONE, REVISION ORDER BECOMES VULNERABLE AND CAN BE HELD TO BE INVALID. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EXERCISE OF POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER O F CIT AND RESTORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/10/2014. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 10 TH OCTOBER, 2014 KV COPY TO:- 1) M/S SHANTHI TRANSPORTS, C/O G.S. MADHAVA RAO & CO., CAS., SUDHARMA BUILDINGS, M.G. ROAD, WARANGAL. 2) ITO WARD 1, KOTHAGUDEM. 3) CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA 4) ADDL. CIT, KHAMMAM RANGE, KHAMMAM. 5)THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDER ABAD.