AI Insights
The case revolves around the appeal by SBS Biotech Unit II against the order of the PCIT, Chandigarh-1, which set aside the reassessment order passed by the AO for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was regarding the eligibility of the assessee to claim 100% deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, which the PCIT challenged based on the timing and extent of the assessee's substantial expansion. The Tribunal examined the legal provisions, the decisions of the Supreme Court, and the submissions made by both parties. It was concluded that the AO had correctly applied the law and allowed the deduction, leading to the setting aside of the PCIT's order.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107849 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-02-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Judgement Text
"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च᭛डीगढ़ ᭠यायपीठ “बी” , च᭛डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE ᮰ी िवᮓम ᳲसह यादव, लेखा सद᭭य एवं ᮰ी परेश म. जोशी, ᭠याियक सद᭭य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM &SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 413/Chd/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 SBS Biotech Unit II Nahan road Mauza Rampur Jattan, Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh-173030 बनाम The Pr. CIT-1 Chandigarh ᭭थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABOFS6830P अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent िनधाᭅᳯरती कᳱ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, C.A राज᭭व कᳱ ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/01/2025 उदघोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25/02/2025 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. PCIT, Chandigarh -1 dt. 28/03/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In the present appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the PCIT has wrongly passed order under section 263 of IT Acct and set aside the re assessment order for verification of contention of appellant. 2. That the PCIT has wrongly passed order under section 263 of IT Act and set aside the order which has been passed after making due enquiries and re assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of Revenue. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing of ayurvedic products at its facility situated in Sirmour District of Himachal Pradesh. For the financial year 2016-17 relevant to 2 impugned assessment year 2017-18, it filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 2,68,78,900/- after claiming deduction under section 80IC @ 100% amounting to Rs. 15,12,63,064/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened in order to verify the claim of deduction under section 80IC @ 100% and notice under section 148 was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 2,68,78,900/- as originally declared and thereafter notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith detailed questionnaire were issued and after taking into consideration the submissions so filed by the assessee and after carrying out necessary examination/verification, the assessment proceedings were completed under section 147 r.w.s 144B vide order dt. 30/03/2022 without drawing any adverse inference with regard to claim of deduction under section 80IC @ 100% and income so returned was accepted. 4. Subsequently, the assessment records were called for and examined by the Ld. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh -1 and a show cause under section 263 dt. 14/03/2024 was issued to the assessee. In the show cause, it has been stated by the Ld. Pr. CIT that on perusal of the Form 10CCB filed by the assessee company in support of claim of deduction under section 80IC, it is noticed that the date of commencement of operations/activities by the assessee firm was 03.11.2008 and the initial assessment year from which the deduction claimed was the A.Y. 2009-10. It was stated by him that as per the provisions given in section 801C of the Income Tax Act 1961, the assessee firm is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IC at 100% of the eligible profit for first five assessment years and 25% from the sixth assessment year onwards till the 10th Assessment Year. It was further stated by the ld PCIT that the substantial expansion was carried out by the assessee firm on 30.03.2012 and where the same is taken into consideration, the assessee firm is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IC at 100% of the eligible profit till the A.Y. 2016-17 being 5th assessment year after substantial expansion. It was stated by the ld PCIT that the assessee firm, however, has claimed deduction @ 100% 3 Rs. 15,12,63,064/- u/s 80IC of the Act which is more than eligible deduction at 25% of the eligible profit of Rs. 15,12,63,064/- being 6th year after substantial expansion which was carried out on 30.03.2012. Thus, 75% of the deduction claimed u/s 801C i.e. Rs. 11,34,47,298/- was required to be disallowed and charged to tax and the assessee was given an opportunity to explain as to why the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 by the AO for the A.Y. 2017-18 may not be cancelled and the AO may not be directed to make a fresh assessment. 5. In response to the show cause, the assessee filed its submissions which were taking into consideration by the Ld. Pr. CIT and the matter was remitted to the file of the jurisdictional AO for carrying out factual verification in light of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of PCIT vs Aartham Softronics [2019] 102 Taxmann.com 343 and order so passed by the AO u/s 147 r/w 143B was accordingly held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 6. Against the said findings and the directions of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee objects to ld PCIT invocation of his jurisdiction for initiating the revision proceedings by issue of notice under section 263 of the Act dated 14th March 2024. It was submitted that Section 263 of the Act grants power to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act, and if he considers that any order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, to pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. It was submitted that the power to initiate revision proceedings can be exercised only if the two conditions are satisfied simultaneously, that is, the order passed by the Assessing Officer must be an erroneous one; and secondly, the order must be prejudicial to the 4 interests of the Revenue. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC) has held that “a bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the pre-requisite to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue recourse cannot be had to S. 263(1) of the Act.\" Accordingly, the Commissioner can only invoke Section 263 if both the conditions, i.e. order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue are satisfied. It therefore needs to be seen that both the conditions have been satisfied before initiating the revision proceedings. The satisfaction must be one which is objectively justifiable and cannot be the mere ipse dixit of the Commissioner as held in case of G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. [2003] 263 ITR 255 (SC). 8. It was further submitted that where Assessing Officer having examined relevant material on record, passed the assessment order in case of assessee, the ld. Principal Commissioner without rejecting those documents could not pass a revisional order setting aside assessment as held by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Deepak Real Estate Developers (1) (P.) Ltd. 52 taxmann.com 75 (Raj.). It was submitted that where the Assessing Officer has made necessary enquiry and applied his mind, Commissioner cannot exercise his revisional powers under section 263 of the Act. 9. It was submitted that Explanation 2 to Section 263(1) also provides that order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous is so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if in the opinion of the Commissioner, the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which 5 should have been made or the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim. 10. It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83(Delhi) has explained that there is a distinction between \"lack of inquiry\" and \"inadequate inquiry\". If there was any inquiry even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act merely because he has a different opinion in the matter and the relevant findings read as under: \"In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the Tribunal arrived at a conclusive finding that, though the assessment order does not patently indicate that the issue in question had been considered by the Assessing Officer, the record showed that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind. Once such application of mind is discernible from the record, the proceedings under section 263 would fell into the area of the Commissioner having a different opinion. We are of the view that the findings of facts arrived at by the Tribunal do not warrant interference of this Court. That being the position, the present case would not be one of 'lack of inquiry' and, even if the inquiry was termed as inadequate, following the decision in Sunbeam Auto Ltd.'s case (supra), \"that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the said Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter\". No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.\" 11. It was submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [2012] 28 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi HC) has similarly held as under: \"It is well settled that if there is some enquiry by the Assessing Officer in the original proceedings even if inadequate that cannot clothe the Commissioner with jurisdiction under section 263 merely because he can form another opinion.\" In the instant case, the assessee was specifically queried regarding the nature and character of the one-time regulatory fee paid by it as well as the bank and stamp duty charges. A detailed explanation and other documents required by the Assessing Officer were produced at the stage of original assessment. Clearly this was not a case of 'no enquiry'. The lack of any discussion on this cannot lead to the assumption that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind. The proceeding in fact shows that the Assessing Officer directed his mind specifically on this aspect and then concluded that the expenditure was in the revenue field. Moreover the decision in Comsat Max Ltd.'s case (supra) has ruled that the expenditure was revenue. It constitutedone plausible or reasonable view. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner could not have validly exercised his supervisory or revisionary power under section 263.\" 6 12. It was further submitted that the Courts have consistently held that where the AO during the scrutiny assessment proceeding raised a query which was answered by the assessee to the satisfaction of the AO but the same was not reflected in the assessment order by him, a conclusion cannot be drawn by the Commissioner that no proper enquiry with respect to the issue was made by the AO, and enable him to assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and reliance was placed on the following judicial decisions: Hari Iron Trading Company vs CIT 2003 (5) TMI 48 (P&H) Ashish Rajpal [2009] 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) Vikash Polymers [2010] 194 Taxman 57 (Delhi) Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. (2015) 60 taxmann.com 243 (All) 13. Thus, where the Assessing Officer has made necessary enquiry and applied his mind, Commissioner cannot exercise his revisional powers under section 263 of the Act. It was submitted that non-passing of elaborated order does not tantamount to non-application of mind by the AO. It was submitted that where the Assessing Officer examined all the details with respect to assessee's claim of deduction, the order could not be said to be erroneous or was passed without application of mind merely because the same was not an elaborate order. 14. It was submitted that in the present case, the assessee's case was reopened by the AO specifically on the issue of claim of 100% deduction under section 80-IC of the Act and our reference was drawn to the reasons so recorded u/s 148 and the contents of which read as under: “1. Brief details of the Assessee: The assessee has filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 28.10.2017, The return of income of the assessee was processed by CPC on 23.03.2019 and raised a demand of Rs.1,16.270/-. 2. Brief details of information collected/ received by the AO: information was gathered during the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2017-18 in sister concern of the assesseel.e. M/s SBS Biotech Unit-I (PAN ABKFS2514E) which was completed on 27.12.2019 where the assessee has claimed 100% deduction u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act and same was restricted to @25% as entitled 7 3. Analysis of information collected/received: It is pertinent to mention here that the case of the assessee, M/s SBS Biotech Unit-1 (PAN. ABOFS6830P) was not under scrutiny for A.Y. 2017-18, therefore, the then AO has cross verified the claim of deduction u/s 80IC in the case of M/s SBS Biotech Unit-II (PAN: ABOFS6830P) from departmental system ITBA and AST. From the perusal of the returned of income and form 10CCB, it is noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.15,12,63,064/- u/s 80IC which is more than eligible deduction @25% of the eligible profit of Rs 16,85,84,575/- (shown in ITR) being 5th year after substantial expansion was carried out on 30.03.2012. As per provision given in Section 8010 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 801C @100% of the eligible profit for first five assessment year and 25% (30% in case of company) from the sixth assessment year onwards till the 10th assessment year. Further, it is mention here that even if the assessee has carried out substantial expansion as on or before 31.03.2012, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IC @100% of the eligible profit till the assessment year 2016-17 being 5th year after substantial expansion. 4 Enquires made by the AO as sequel to information collected/Received: In this regard, a letter dated 14.02.2020 was sent to the assessee for calling of information u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to justify his claim of deduction u/s 80IC in A.Y. 2017-18 with relevant documents. Again, reminder for calling of information u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 15.03.2021 for furnish the relevant documents/information on or before 18.03.2021, but no information/documents was filed by the assessee in response to abovementioned letters. 5. Findings of the AO: Since the genuineness of the excess claim amounting to Rs.10,91,16,920/- for deduction u/s 80IC in A.Y. 2017-18 could not be verified in the absence of the proper & complete reply/supporting documents of the assessee, I am therefore satisfied that the said income has escaped assessment. 6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of Income: In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the assessee has made excess claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the 1.T. Act, 1961 in A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act at reduced rate of 25% only in A.Y. 2017-18. In this background, the excess claim of deduction u/s 80IC of Rs.10,91,16,920/-[15,12,63,0644,21,46,144 (25% of 16,85,84,575)] is escaped income of the assessee. Further in case other unexplained income of the assessee comes to light during the course of assessment proceedings, then such unexplained income will be added to the total assessed income at the culmination of assessment proceedings. Considering the factual matrix, statutory provisions and legal principles, the undersigned has reasons to believe that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all materials on facts necessary for assessment and there has been an escapement of income to the tune of Rs.10,91,16,920/- chargeable to tax for the assessment within the meaning of Clause (b) of explanation 2 of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and hence it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings in terms of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. Applicability of the provisions of section 147/151 to the facts of the case: In this case, a return of income was filed for the year under consideration but no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made. Accordingly, in this cases, the only requirement to Initiate proceedings u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded in paragraph 6. The case is within four years from the end of 8 the Assessment Year under consideration. Therefore, necessary approval u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is solicited for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18.” 15. Further, our reference was drawn to factual and legal submissions in connection with eligibility of 100% deduction under section 80-IC of the Act so made by the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings and the contents of which read as under: “Sub: Notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961('Act) Dear Sir, The assessee is in receipt of subject notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021- 22/1041197705(1) dated March 21, 2022 Issued by your goodself. (Copy of notice is enclosed as Annexure 1). In this regard, the assessee would like to submit as under for your kind consideration: 1. The assessee, a partnership firm, is situated at Nahan Road, Mauza Rampur Jattan Kala Amb, Distt: Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. The said firm was set up on 3rd of November, 2008 in the Sirmour Distt of Himachal Pradesh. The said firm had been engaged in manufacturing of Ayurvedic Products. 2. The assessee commenced its business operations on 3rd of November, 2008 and was set up in the Himachal Pradesh in an area notified by the government for the purpose of availing deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. Further, the assessee was engaged in manufacturing of Ayurvedic products which was outside the ambit of articles specified in the Thirteenth Schedule. Accordingly, the assessee was covered under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 80-IC and therefore was eligible to claim deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. Copy of Certificate Issued by the Inter-Ministerial Board, duly substantiating assessee's clalm is enclosed herewith as Annexure 2. 3. Further, in order to claim benefit of 100% deduction, the assessee undertook substantial expansion before the year ending 31st March 2012. Copy of Certificate with regard to substantial expansion issued by the Industrial Department of Himachal Pradesh is enclosed herewith as Annexure 3. The fact here to be noted that at the time of substantial expansion, the assessee had not completed the initial five years of claiming 100% deduction. 4. Section 80-IC of the Act provides for Special Provisions in respect of certain undertakings or enterprises in certain special category states. The relevant extract of the section is reproduced below: \"(1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to in sub- section (2), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains, as specified in sub-section (3). 9 (2) This section applies to any undertaking or enterprise, - (a) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing, not being any article or thing specified in the Thirteenth Schedule, or which manufactures or produces any article or thing, not being any article or thing specified in the Thirteenth Schedule and undertakes substantial expansion during the period beginning- (i) on the 23rd day of December, 2002 and ending before the [1st day of April, 2007], in any Export Processing Zone or Integrated Infrastructure Development Centre or Industrial Growth Centre or Industrial Estate or Industrial Park or Software Technology Park or Industrial Area or Theme Park, as notified by the Board in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Central Government in this regard, In the State of Sikkim; or (ii) on the 7th day of January, 2003 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2012, in any Export Processing Zone or Integrated Infrastructure Development Centre or Industrial Growth Centre or Industrial Estate or Industrial Park or Software Technology Park or Industrial Area or Theme Park, as notified by the Board in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Central Government in this regard, in the State of Himachal Pradesh or the State of Uttaranchal; or (ill) on the 24th day of December, 1997 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2007, in any Export Processing Zone or Integrated Infrastructure Development Centre or Industrial Growth Centre or Industrial Estate or Industrial Park or Software Technology Park or Industrial Area or Theme Park, as notified by the Board in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Central Government in this regard, in any of the North-Eastern States; (b) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing, specified in the Fourteenth Schedule or commences any operation specified in that Schedule, or which manufactures or produces any article or thing, specified in the Fourteenth Schedule or commences any operation specified in that Schedule and undertakes substantial expansion during the period beginning- (i) on the 23rd day of December, 2002 and ending before the 2 [1st day of April, 2007], in the State of Sikkim; or (il) on the 7th day of January, 2003 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2012, In the State of Himachal Pradesh or the State of Uttaranchal; or (iii) on the 24th day of December, 1997 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2007, in any of the North-Eastern States. (3)The deduction referred to in sub-section(1) shall be- (1) in the case of any undertaking or enterprise referred to in sub-clauses (1) and (iii) of clause (a) or sub-clauses(1) and (ill) of clause (b) of, sub-section (2), one hundred per cent of such profits and galns for ten assessment years commencing with the initial assessment year; (ii) in the case of any undertaking or enterprise referred to in sub-clauses (il) of clause (a) or sub-clauses(ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2), one hundred per cent of such profits and gains for five assessment years commencing with the Initial assessment year and thereafter, twenty-five per cent (or thirty per cent where the assessee is a company) of the profits and gains.\" 10 5. Section 80-IC of the Act also provides for definition of \"Initial assessment year\" which means the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking or the enterprise begins to manufacture or produce articles or things, or commences operation or completes substantial expansion. 6. Further, section 80-IC also provides for 100% deduction from eligible profits in case any substantial expansion is undertaken by an undertaking or an enterprise. The assessee during the AY 2012-13, undertook a substantial expansion and therefore become eligible for claiming 100% deduction from eligible profits for five assessment years. Due attention is invited to the fact that section 80-IC had a sunset clause and In order to avail benefit of the said section, the requirements had to be complied with before 1st day of April 2012. 7. It is further submitted that the basic intent of the lawmakers behind the introduction of section 80-IC was promotion of the said notified areas through setting up of new manufacturing units or substantial expansion of already established units. This would promote development, employment and revenue generation in such backward areas. Therefore, in order to encourage people to set up undertaking / enterprise in such areas, deduction was provided under section 80-IC. 8. The intent of section 80IC of the Act has been explained by Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) vide Circular No. 7/2003 dated September 5, 2003 (memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Bill, 2003) which is reproduced below: \"49.1 The Union Cabinet has announced a package of Fiscal and non-fiscal concessions for the special category States of Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Sikkim and North-Eastern States, in order to give boost to the economy in these States. With a view to give effect to these new packages a new section 80-IC has been inserted to allow a deduction for ten years from the profits of new undertakings or enterprises or existing undertakings or enterprises on their substantial expansion, in the States of Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Sikkim and North-Eastern States. For this purpose, substantial expansion is defined as increase in the investment in the plant and machinery by at least 50% of the book value of the plant and machinery (before taking depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken.\" 9. The circular makes it clear that section 80IC of the Act was inserted to give effect to the new package announced by the Union Cabinet. The circular further clarifies that this section provides for deduction for a period of 10 years from the profits of new undertaking or enterprise or existing undertaking or enterprise on their substantial expansion. However, the word 'existing' qualifies only the undertaking or enterprises and does not mention any particular date for carrying out substantial expansion. 10. The assessee was eligible to claim deduction under section 80-IC for ten assessment years beginning from AY 2009-10 till AY 2018-19. For first five assessment years, the assessee was eligible for 100% deduction from eligible profits and for the remaining five years, the assessee was eligible for 25% deduction. 11. However, the assessee undertook substantial expansion in AY 2012-13 and therefore, It was entitled to claim 100% deduction from eligible profits again for fresh period of five assessment years but within the block of the original 10 assessment years. The assessee firm had fully complied with the provisions of the 11 law and had claimed deduction during the above-mentioned period within the block of ten assessment years only. 12. In the recent judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of PCIT v. Aarham Softronics [2019] (102 taxmann.com 343), the controversy with regard to two initial assessment years within the block of 10 assessment years has been put to an end. The decision of the Supreme Court has been delivered in favour of assessee whereby it is affirmed that there could be two initial assessment years, one at the time of commencement of operations and another at the time of completion of substantial expansion. The advantage of this provision is also accrued to those existing units, if they carry out \"substantial expansion\" of their units by Investing required capital, in the assessment year relevant to the previous year. Relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced below: \"24. The aforesaid discussion leads us to the following conclusions: (a) Judgment dated 20th August, 2018 in Classic Binding Industries case omitted to take note of the definition 'initial assessment year' contained in Section 80-IC itself and instead based its conclusion on the definition contained in Section 80-IB, which does not apply in these cases. The definitions of 'initial assessment year' in the two sections, viz. Sections 80-IB and 80-IC are materially different. The definition of 'initial assessment year' under Section 80-IC has made all the difference. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid judgment does not lay down the correct law. (b) An undertaking or an enterprise which had set up a new unit between 7th January, 2003 and 1st April, 2012 in State of Himachal Pradesh of the nature mentioned in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 80-IC, would be entitled to deduction at the rate of 100% of the profits and gains for five assessment years commencing with the 'initial assessment year' For the next five years, the admissible deduction would be 25% (or 30% where the assessee is a company) of the profits and gains. (c) However, in case substantial expansion is carried out as defined in clause (ix) of sub-section (8) of Section 80-IC by such an undertaking or enterprise, within the aforesaid period of 10 years, the said previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken would become 'initial assessment year', and from that assessment year the assessee shall been entitled to 100% deductions of the profits and gains. (d) Such deduction, however, would be for a total period of 10 years, as provided in sub-section (6).\" (Emphasis Supplied) 13. Accordingly, the assessee's claim of 100% deduction again at the time of substantial expansion is supported by the said judgement. Therefore assessee had rightly availed deduction at 100% in subject AY, being 9th year, within the block of eligible ten assessment years. 14. The assessee availed 100% deduction for assessment years from AY 2013-14 on the basis that substantial expansion has been undertaken by the assessee on 30.03.2012. Further, these AYs fall within the block of 10 assessment years for which the assessee Is eligible to claim deduction under section 80-IC. Although the substantial expansion was undertaken by the assessee during the AY 2012-13 but since the first block of five years i.e. from AY 2009-10 to AY 2013-14 was still not exhausted, the assessee continued to avail 100% deduction till AY 2012-13 on the 12 basis of initial setup and 100% deduction for four assessment years l.e. AY 2013-14 to AY 2017-18 on the basis of substantial expansion carried out. 15. For AY 2017-18, being 9th assessment year under the block of eligible 10 assessment years, assessee availed 100% deduction even though the substantial expansion took place in AY 2012-13. This was due to overlapping of two assessment years i.e. AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 between first block and second block. Due to the overlapping of two assessment years, the assessee would have faced genuine hardship and deduction for those two assessment years would have been limited to 25% of eligible profits. Accordingly, the assessee claimed 100% deduction under section 80-IC in AY 2017-18. 16. With regard to the quantum of deduction, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee has claimed a deduction of INR 15,12,63,064 under section 80-IC for subject AY as enumerated in below table. The same has been duly reported by the assessee in schedule 80-IC of the income tax return filed for the subject AY. Particulars Amount (In INR) Profits derived from Manufacturing unit set upto at Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh 16,08,74,713.51 Total (A) 16,08,74,713.51 Less: Interest on FDR (Crdited in P&L) 95,57,387.08 Dividend (Credited in P&L) 54,262,.66 Total (B) 96,11,649.74 Net Eligible Profits (A-B) 15,12,63,064.00 Form 10CCB and Tax Audit Report issued by Chartered Accountant also justify the claim of the assessee 17. It is further submitted that the deduction claimed by the assessee is also supported by the certificate (In Form 10CCB) Issued by the Chartered Accountant (CA) certifying that the assessee is eligible to claim 100% deduction. Copy of form 10CCB issued by CA is enclosed as Annexure 4. Further, the aforesaid claim has also been reported by CA In its Tax Audit Report. Accordingly, as per the certification issued CA, the assessee is of the bonafide belief that it is eligible to claim 100% deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. Provisions relating to exemption or concession must as far as possible be liberally construed 18. The provisions of section 80-IC of the Act have been enacted with a view to encourage the setting up of new industrial undertaking / expansion of the Industriesin certain special category State and object is sought to be achieved by granting exemption or concession from tax on the profits earned by such establishment. 19. Ordinarily, a provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally; and since a provision for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it, too has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not 13 to frustrate it as laid down in case of CIT v. UP State Agro Industrial Corpn. (1991) 188 ITR 370, 375(AII). 20. Amongst others, in the following cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that incentive provisions/beneficial provisions should be construed liberally: a) Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 62 Taxman 480 (SC) \"A provision In a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally!... Since a provision intended for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it, too, has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the section and not to frustrate it.\" b) Broach Distt. Cooperative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd. v. CTT [1989] 177 ITR 418 (SC) \"The object of section 81(1) was to encourage and promote the growth of co- operative societles, and, consequently, a liberal construction must be given to the operation of that provision.\" c) CIT v. Strawboard Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 431 (SC) \"It is necessary to remember that when a provision is made in the context of a law providing for concessional rates of tax for the purpose of encouraging an Industrial activity, a liberal construction should be put upon the language of the statute.\" 21. Further, reliance is placed on following judicial precedents wherein the courts laid down preposition that provisions relating to exemption or concession must as far as possible be liberally construed and in favour of the assessee: Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 (SC) CIT v. Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co. (1959) 35 ITR 662, 673 (Bom) Capsulation Services Pvt. Ltd v. CIT, (1973) 91 ITR 566, 570 (Bom) CIT v. Simpson & Co. (1980) 122 ITR 283, 287 (Mad.) CIT v. Sanghi Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (1982) 134 ITR 623 (MP) 22. In light of the above legal arguments and judicial precedents and considering the fact that there is no express prohibition in section 80-IC of the Act for grant of benefit where a substantial expansion is made by newly set up unit during a qualified period, and assessee shall be eligible to claim 100% deduction for FY 2017-18 (which is within the block of ten years). Our Prayer: 23. In view of the aforesaid facts and legal position, it is respectfully submitted that there was no warrant at all for Initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act in the case of the assessee. 24. The assessee is of sanguine belief that on going through the aforesaid reply, your goodself would be satisfied that there is no escapement of income and your goodself would be pleased to drop the proceedings initiated by your goodself. 14 25. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee would like to submit that even after claiming 100% deduction under section 80-IC, it has duly discharged its tax obligation under Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT), being higher than the tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act.” 16. It was submitted that the AO, after verifying the submissions/explanation given by the assessee, did not find any adverse inference thereon and accepted the claim of the assessee. In other words, no addition was made by the Ld. AO in the reassessment proceeding in respect of issues that are subject matter of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and the contents of the reassessment order so passed u/s 147 r/w 144B read as under: \"1. The case has been re-opened on the issue for verification of the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the IT act 1961 of @100%. Notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act dated 30/03/2021 has been issued and served to the assessee. The assessee has filed return of income in response of notice u/s 148 of the I. Τ. Act declaring total income at Rs 2,68,78,900/-, Notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act dated 30/06/2021. 2. The assessee has shown Profit from Manufacturing 3. The assessee submitted reply on e-filing portal in response to notices under section 142(1) of the Act. The reply of the assessee has been verified and the assessment is completed accepting the total Income of Rs. 2,68,78,900/-as per return of income in response of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961. 4. Assessed income u/s 143(3) r.ws 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. Computation sheet and demand notice are attached and part of the assessment order\" 17. It was submitted that the AO during the reassessment proceeding specifically raised query on 80- IC deduction which was answered by the assessee to the satisfaction of the AO. Since the AO has already made proper enquiry with respect to the issue as also evident from the order, therefore, there is no occasion to assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in the assessee case. 18. It was further submitted that the AO having recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment and having formed a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment, had not made any addition in the reassessment proceedings in respect of issues that are subject matter of reopening. Hence, the very basis of formation of belief for the AO vanishes. Hence, the AO could not have framed any reassessment per se. It was 15 submitted that logically, the AO should have simply dropped the initiation of reassessment proceedings instead of passing a separate reassessment order. Once, the reassessment order per se framed by the AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law, any revision proceedings under section 263 seeking to revise such unsustainable order cannot be accepted in the eyes of law. In support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of PCIT vs Shri P Narasimha Reddy (ITA no 97/2019), ITAT Chandigarh Benches in case of Ram Lal (ITA no 370/2022) and ITAT Hyderabad Benches in case of Ganga Vinay Babu (ITA no 123/Hyd/2021). 19. It was further submitted that without prejudice to the above, even on merits, the assessee is eligible to claim 100% deduction under section 80-IC of the Act for the impugned assessment year 2017-18. In this regard, it was submitted that the assessee commenced its business operations on 3rd of November, 2008 and set up its manufacturing facility in the state of Himachal Pradesh in an area notified by the government for the purpose of availing deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. Further, the assessee was engaged in manufacturing of Ayurvedic products which was outside the ambit of articles specified in the Thirteenth Schedule. Accordingly, the assessee was covered under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 80-IC and therefore was eligible to claim deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. 20. It was submitted that Section 80-IC of the Act provides for deduction in respect of certain undertakings or enterprises in certain specified states and the relevant extract thereof read as below: \"(1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to in sub- section (2), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains, as specified in sub-section (3). (2) This section applies to any undertaking or enterprise,- (a) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing, not being any article or thing specified in the Thirteenth Schedule, or which manufactures or produces any article or thing, not being any article or thing 16 specified in the Thirteenth Schedule and undertakes substantial expansion during the period beginning- (i) on the 23rd day of December, 2002 and ending before the [1st day of April, 2007], in any Export Processing Zone or Integrated Infrastructure Development Centre or Industrial Growth Centre or Industrial Estate or Industrial Park or Software Technology Park or Industrial Area or Theme Park, as notified by the Board in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Central Government in this regard, in the State of Sikkim, or (ii) on the 7th day of January, 2003 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2012, in any Export Processing Zone or Integrated Infrastructure Development Centre or Industrial Growth Centre or Industrial Estate or Industrial Park or Software Technology Park or Industrial Area or Theme Park, as notified by the Board in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Central Government in this regard, in the State of Himachal Pradesh or the State of Uttaranchal; or (iii) on the 24th day of December, 1997 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2007, in any Export Processing Zone or Integrated Infrastructure Development Centre or Industrial Growth Centre or Industrial Estate or Industrial Park or Software Technology Park or Industrial Area or Theme Park, as notified by the Board in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Central Government in this regard, in any of the North-Eastem States; (b) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing, specified in the Fourteenth Schedule or commences any operation specified in that Schedule, or which manufactures or produces any article or thing, specified in the Fourteenth Schedule or commences any operation specified in that Schedule and undertakes substantial expansion during the period beginning- (i) on the 23rd day of December, 2002 and ending before the 2 [1st day of April, 2007], in the State of Sikkim, or (ii) on the 7th day of January, 2003 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2012, in the State of Himachal Pradesh or the State of Uttaranchal; or (iii) on the 24th day of December, 1997 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2007, in any of the North-Eastern States. (3) The deduction referred to in sub-section(1) shall be- (i) in the case of any undertaking or enterprise referred to in sub-clauses (i) and (iii) of clause (a) or sub-clauses(i) and (iii) of clause (b) of, sub-section (2), one hundred per cent of such profits and gains for ten assessment years commencing with the initial assessment year, (ii) in the case of any undertaking or enterprise referred to in sub-clauses (ii) of clause (a) or sub-clauses(ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2), one hundred percent of such profits and gains for five assessment years commencing with the Initial assessment year and thereafter, twenty-five per cent (or thirty per cent where the assessee is a company) of the profits and gains.\" 21. It was submitted that Section 80-IC of the Act also provides for definition of \"Initial assessment year\" which means the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking or the enterprise begins to manufacture 17 or produce articles or things, or commences operation or completes substantial expansion. Thus, section 80-IC also provides for 100% deduction from eligible profits in case any substantial expansion is undertaken by an undertaking or an enterprise. The assessee during the AY 2012-13, undertook a substantial expansion and therefore become eligible for claiming 100% deduction from eligible profits for five assessment years. Due attention is invited to the fact that section 80-IC had a sunset clause and in order to avail benefit of the said section, the requirements had to be complied with before 1st day of April 2012. Accordingly, in order to claim benefit of 100% deduction, the assessee undertook substantial expansion before the year ending 31 March 2012. Copy of Certificate with regard to substantial expansion issued by the Industrial Department of Himachal Pradesh has been placed on record. 22. It was further submitted that the basic intent of the lawmakers behind the introduction of section 80-IC was promotion of the said notified areas through setting up of new manufacturing units or substantial expansion of already established units. This would promote development, employment and revenue generation in such backward areas. Therefore, in order to encourage people to set up undertaking /enterprise in such areas, deduction was provided under section 80-IC. The intent of section 80-IC of the Act has been explained by Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) vide Circular No. 7/2003 dated September 5, 2003 (memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Bill, 2003) which is reproduced below: \"49.1 The Union Cabinet has announced a package of Fiscal and non-fiscal concessions for the special category States of Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Sikkim and North-Eastern States, in order to give boost to the economy in these States. With a view to give effect to these new packages a new section 80-IC has been inserted to allow a deduction for ten years from the profits of new undertakings or enterprises or existing undertakings or enterprises on their substantial expansion, in the States of Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Sikkim and North-Eastern States. For this purpose, substantial expansion is defined as increase in the investment in the plant and machinery by at least 50% of the book value of the plant and machinery (before taking depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken.\" 18 23. It was submitted that the circular makes it clear that section 80-IC of the Act was inserted to give effect to the new package announced by the Union Cabinet. The circular further clarifies that this section provides for deduction for a period of 10 years from the profits of new undertaking or enterprise or existing undertaking or enterprise on their substantial expansion. However, the word 'existing' qualifies only the undertaking or enterprises and does not mention any particular date for carrying out substantial expansion and in the instant case, the substantial expansion was completed on 30-03-2012. 24. It was submitted that the assessee was eligible to claim deduction under section 80-IC for 10 assessment years beginning from AY 2009-10 till AY 2018-19. For first five assessment years, the assessee was eligible for 100% deduction from eligible profits and for the remaining five years, the assessee was eligible for 25% deduction. However, the assessee undertook substantial expansion on 30/03/2012 and therefore, it was entitled to claim 100% deduction from eligible profits again for fresh period of five assessment years but within the block of the original 10 assessment years. The assessee firm had fully complied with the provisions of the law and had claimed deduction during the above-mentioned period of 10 assessment years only. 25. It was submitted that in the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of PCIT v. Aarham Softronics [2019] (102 taxmann.com 343), the controversy with regard to two initial assessment years within the block of 10 assessment years has been put to an end. The decision of the Supreme Court has been delivered in favour of assessee whereby it is affirmed that there could be two initial assessment years, one at the time of commencement of operations and another at the time of completion of substantial expansion. The advantage of this provision is also accrued to those existing units, if they carry out \"substantial expansion\" of their units by investing required capital and the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under: (a) Judgment dated 20th August, 2018 in Classic Binding Industries case omitted to take note of the definition 'initial assessment year' contained in Section 80-IC 19 itself and instead based its conclusion on the definition contained in Section 80-IB, which does not apply in these cases. The definitions of 'initial assessment year' in the two sections, viz. Sections 80-IB and 80-IC are materially different. The definition of 'initial assessment year' under Section 80-IC has made all the difference. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid judgment does not lay down the correct law. (b) An undertaking or an enterprise which had set up a new unit between 7th January, 2003 and 1st April, 2012 in State of Himachal Pradesh of the nature mentioned in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 80-IC, would be entitled to deduction at the rate of 100% of the profits and gains for five assessment years commencing with the 'initial assessment year' For the next five years, the admissible deduction would be 25% (or 30% where the assesse is a company) of the profits and gains. (c) However, in case substantial expansion is carried out as defined in clause (ix) of sub-section (8) of Section 80-IC by such an undertaking or enterprise, within the aforesaid period of 10 years, the said previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken would become 'initial assessment year', and from that assessment year the assessee shall been entitled to 100% deductions of the profits and gains. (d) Such deduction, however, would be for a total period of 10 years, as provided in sub-section (6)” 26. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee's claim of 100% deduction again at the time of substantial expansion is supported by the said judgement. Therefore the assessee had rightly availed 100% deduction within the block of eligible 10 assessment years. The assessee availed 100% deduction for assessment years starting from AY 2013-14 on the basis that substantial expansion has been undertaken by the assessee on 30.03.2012. Further, these AYs fall within the block of 10 assessment years for which the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under section 80-IC. It was submitted that the claim of deduction by the assessee is also supported by the certificate (in Form 10CCB) issued by the Chartered Accountant (CA) certifying that the assessee is eligible to claim 100% deduction which has been placed on record. 27. It was submitted that the provisions of section 80-IC of the Act have been enacted with a view to encourage the setting up of new industrial undertaking/expansion of the industries in certain special category State and object is sought to be achieved by granting exemption or concession from tax on the profits earned by such establishment. Ordinarily, a provision in a taxing 20 statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally; and since a provision for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it, too has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it as laid down in case of CIT v. UP State Agro Industrial Corpn. (1991) 188 ITR 370, 375(AII). Amongst others, in the following cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that incentive provisions/beneficial provisions should be construed liberally: a) Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 62 Taxman 480 (SC) \"A provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally!... Since a provision intended for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it, too, has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the section and not to frustrate it.\" b) Broach Distt. Cooperative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd. v. CTT [1989] 177 ITR 418 (SC) \"The object of section 81(i) was to encourage and promote the growth of co- operative societies, and, consequently, a liberal construction must be given to the operation of that provision.\" c) CIT v. Strawboard Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 431 (SC) \"It is necessary to remember that when a provision is made in the context of a law providing for concessional rates of tax for the purpose of encouraging an industrial activity, a liberal construction should be put upon the language of the statute.\" 28. Further, reliance was placed on following judicial precedents wherein the Courts laid down preposition that provisions relating to exemption or concession must as far as possible be liberally construed and in favour of the assessee: Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 (SC) CIT v. Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co. (1959) 35 ITR 662, 673 (Bom) Capsulation Services Pvt. Ltd v. CIT, (1973) 91 ITR 566, 570 (Bom) CIT v. Simpson & Co. (1980) 122 ITR 283, 287 (Mad.) CIT v. Sanghi Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (1982) 134 ITR 623 (MP) 29. In light of the above legal arguments and judicial precedents and considering the fact that there is no express prohibition in section 80-IC of the 21 Act for grant of benefit where a substantial expansion is made by newly set up unit during a qualified period, the assessee is eligible to claim 100% deduction for AY 2017-18 and which has been rightly allowed by the Assessing officer. 30. Further, reference was drawn to the findings of the ld PCIT in para 6 of the impugned order and it was submitted that ld PCIT has held that “In view of the discussion above, at this time, the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 can be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of revenue only if the factual verifications directed to be carried out by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer(JAO) lead to a finding that is contrary to the submission made by the assessee, which prima facie does not appear to be the case here.” It was submitted that ld PCIT himself held that submission made by assessee which prima facie does not appear to be case here, meaning thereby he is also of the view that the assessee is eligible for 100% claim of deduction, at the same time, ld PCIT has directed the JAO to verify the submission made by the assessee and it was submitted that JAO has not found any defect in facts given in submission before PCIT-1 Chandigarh. 31. In view of the aforesaid facts and legal position, it was submitted that AO has already verified and accepted the claim of assessee. Further, ld PCIT himself held in para 6 of order stated that submission made by assessee is not prima facie erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of revenue and therefore we request to quash the revisionary order passed u/s 263 of Income Tax Act. 32. Per contra, the Ld. CIT/DR has vehemently argued the matter. It was submitted that firstly, the AO has passed a very cryptic order and it is not clear that as to whether he has examined the matter relating to claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act. Further, our reference was drawn to the show cause notice issued by the Ld. Pr. CIT wherein it has been stated that even if the assessee firm has carried out substantial expansion on or before 31/03/2012, the assessee firm is entitled to claim deduction under section 80IC @ 100% of eligible profit till A.Y 2016-17 being the 5th A.Y. after substantial expansion. However the 22 assessee firm has claimed deduction @ 100% of eligible profit for the sixth A.Y. i.e; impugned A.Y and therefore the assessee has claimed excess deduction under section 80IC of the Act. 33. Further, our reference was drawn to the findings of the Ld. Pr. CIT in para 4 of the impugned order wherein the Ld. PCIT has stated that the technical arguments of the assessee against the present revision proceedings initiated based on decision and findings in law of the various Hon'ble Courts and Tribunal Benches are discounted and disregarded as either parimateria inapplicable or since the orders of the ITAT Benches in other cases are only orders in personam and not orders in rem or are the ratios of non-jurisdictional High Courts not directly binding on the facts of this instant case of the assessee. Further, the legislated statutory provisions and substance of Explanation 2(a) to section 263(1) of the Act would supersede and overwhelm all other legal considerations including the fact of previous reopening and reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act in according permission to re-verify and re-examine the matters in reference being the question of the proportion of deduction (viz. 25% versus 100%) u/s 80IC of the Act and the consequent assessability and chargeability to tax of any additional incomes in the hands of the assessee. This is because prior to the initiation of the revision proceedings, enquiries/examinations in the manners in which these ought to have been carried out were not so carried out rendering such previous impugned order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 34. Our reference was further drawn to the findings of the ld PCIT that where, on the merits of the case, he has stated that the factual matrix being the Assessment Years in which the expansions of the pertinent activities commenced and the legal positions upheld by the Hon'ble Courts, particularly that by the Apex Court in 102 Taxmann.com 343 (2019) in the case of Aarham Softronics are to be carefully examined and applied by the Assessing Officer before drafting and passing his/her order of assessment following this direction to examine revising of assessment u/s 263 of the Act. 23 35. Our reference was further drawn to the findings of the Ld. Pr CIT in para 5 of the impugned order wherein the Ld. Pr. CIT has stated that a case can be in principle per law made out against the assessee u/s 263 of the Act only if there is clear failure on the part of the Assessing Officer in framing the assessment order without making the requisite inquiries. There would then be the imperative legal need in all such inquiries and investigations to comprehensively examine all applicable facts including to the relevant minutiae of their applicability, to reconcile every logical inconsistency in the arguments debated, if and as any, and to ensure total compliance to all statutory provisions, rules, regulations, instructions, accounting and other standards and stipulations. The investigation/ inquiry carried out by the Assessing Officer would have to be unsatisfactory, superficial and incomplete along several of these matters/dimensions including the due and necessary and complete examination of the documentary particulars/details mandated. A partially driven by whatever reasons inquiry cannot be held to be a full, proper, satisfactory, complete and therefore statutorily valid inquiry, which partial enquiry as carried out by the Assessing Officer resulting in the impugned assessment order in this case has created a vacuum zone of unexplained facts which constitutes an error on facts. This would be tantamount to a premature, precipitate and erroneous decision not borne out by facts or founded on proper law. Such incomplete inquiry would be unacceptable and outside of the pale of law, and inconsistent with the various judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Courts cited later below. Any such a failure on the part of the Assessing Officer would then be referred to and recognized u/s 263 of the Act. It is such failure that would call for revision of the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act. That such jurisdiction for revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act by the Commissioner would be applicable and called for is held in following cases: - i) Thus, even as observed in paragraph 9 by this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. that the scheme of the Act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the 24 Revenue. It is further observed that if due to an erroneous order of the Income Tax Officer, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue- The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 6126 of 2021 [@ SLP (C) No. 13380 of 2018] dated 06.04.2023 ii) Where the Assessing Officer had accepted entry in the statement of account filed by the assessee showing certain income as agricultural income, without making any enquiry, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner u/s 263(1) would be justified- Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66/243 ITR 89 (SC). iii) Not holding an enquiry as is normal and not applying mind to the relevant material would certainly be 'erroneous' assessment warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction - CIT v. JawaharBhattacharjee (2012) 20 taxmann.com 652/342 ITR 74/249 CTR 529 (Gau.) iv) Where enquiry is warranted but not made, it would certainly constitute prejudice to revenue, so that jurisdiction for the Commissioner is available for remanding the matter for such enquiry - CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H). v). Honble Delhi High Court in Income Tax Officer versus DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) has observed: \"The Assessing Officer is both an investigator and an adjudicator. If the Assessing Officer as an adjudicator decides a question or aspect and makes a wrong assessment which is unsustainable in law, it can be corrected by the Commissioner in exercise of revisionary power. As an investigator, it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to investigate the facts required to be examined and verified to compute the taxable income. If the Assessing Officer fails to conduct the said investigation, he commits an error and the word \"erroneous\" includes failure to make the enquiry. In such cases, the order becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on merits.\" vi) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), has observed as under: 25 \"The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-Tax Officer is very different from that of a civil court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis of pleading and evidence which comes before it. The Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. The meaning to be given to the word \"erroneous\" in section 263 emerges out of this context. It is because it is incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make such an inquiry prudent that the word \"erroneous\" in section 263 includes the failure to make such an inquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.\" vii) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Emery Stone Manufacturing Company (213 ITR 843) has held as under: \"Simply because the facts have been disclosed by the assessee, it does not give immunity from revisional jurisdiction which the Commissioner can exercise u/s 263 and as such even in a case where the facts have been disclosed by the assessee to the Assessing Authority and the correct provisions of law have not been examined by the Assessing Authority, the power u/s 263 can be invoked.” viii) Commissioner is free to exercise his jurisdiction on consideration of all relevant facts, provided an opportunity of hearing is afforded to assessee to contest facts on basis of which he had exercised revisional jurisdiction - CIT, Mumbai Vs Amitabh Bachchan [2016]69 taxmann.com 170[SC] ix) Where no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer in passing assessment order after accepting revised return filed by the assessee, Commissioner was well within his powers under Section 263 to direct fresh assessment Virbhadra singh (HUF) vs PCIT [2017] 86 Taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh). 36. Further, our reference was drawn to the findings of the Ld. Pr CIT in para 6 of the impugned order wherein the Ld. Pr. CIT has stated that at this time, the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 can be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of revenue only if the factual verifications directed to be carried out by the Jurisdictional Assessing 26 Officer(JAO) lead to a finding that is contrary to the submission made by the assessee, which prima facie does not appear to be the case here. 37. Further, our reference was drawn to the findings of the Ld. Pr CIT in para 7 of the impugned order wherein the Ld. Pr. CIT has stated that he was of considered opinion that the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer would be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of revenue in accordance with the Explanation 2(a) below section 263(1) of the Act only if the factual verifications as above directed to be carried out by the JAO are found to yield results inconsistent with the stand of the assessee. This is because the order then would not have been passed in accordance with the law, which should have been done, thus making such assessment order passed not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interests of revenue in the matter of proper, detailed, satisfactory and complete inquiries into the assessee's claim that the issue of deductibility u/s 80IC of the Act, viz. whether at 25% or 100%, has already been examined and accepted during the earlier assessment proceedings, and into the consequent matter of arising and bringing to tax any disallowed portions of the deductions claimed u/s 80IC as incomes in the hands of the assessee. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is therefore directed to verify the factual submissions as above made by the assessee, and only if found correct and satisfactory, pass the necessary order u/s 143 of the Act dropping the matters in reference. If the contrary scenario of that the assessee's submissions and arguments are unsatisfactory is obtained in the said matter, such matter can be processed by the JAO for further action of assessment and consequent initiation/imposition of penalty as applicable under the statute. The assessee is at liberty to adduce the facts as deemed relevant before the JAO in consequence to this order. The JAO shall allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and reverify the submissions already made. It may be ensured that any fresh assessment order is passed within the prescribed time as stipulated under section 153(3) of the Act. 27 38. Relying on the aforesaid findings of the ld PCIT, the ld CIT/DR submitted that the ld PCIT has rightly invoked his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and in view of the same, there is no merit in the appeal so filed by the assessee and the same should be dismissed and the impugned order should be confirmed. 39. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. The ld. Pr.CIT while exercising his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act has stated that the legislated statutory provisions and substance of Explanation 2(a) to section 263(1) of the Act would supersede all other legal considerations including the fact of previous reopening and reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act in according permission to re-verify and re-examine the matters in reference being the question of the proportion of deduction (viz. 25% versus 100%) u/s 80IC of the Act for the reason that prior to the initiation of the revision proceedings, enquiries/examinations in the manners in which these ought to have been carried out were not so carried out by the Assessing officer rendering such previous impugned order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Elaborating the same, the ld Pr. CIT has stated that the factual matrix being the Assessment Years in which the expansions of the pertinent activities commenced and the legal position in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Aarham Softronics are to be carefully examined and applied by the Assessing Officer before drafting and passing the assessment order. 40. The ld Pr. CIT has further stated that at this time, that is, at the time of passing of the impugned order u/s 263, the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 can be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue only if the factual verifications directed to be carried out by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer lead to a finding that is contrary to the submission made by the assessee, which prima facie does not appear to be the case here. The Ld. Pr. CIT has finally stated and concluded by holding that at this time, he was of considered opinion that the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer 28 would be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue in accordance with the Explanation 2(a) to section 263(1) of the Act only if the factual verifications as directed above to be carried out by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are found to yield results inconsistent with the stand of the assessee. As per ld Pr. CIT, the reason for the same is that in such a case, the order would not have been passed in accordance with the law, which should have been done, thus making such assessment order passed not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interests of Revenue in the matter of proper, detailed, satisfactory and complete inquiries into the assessee's claim that the issue of deductibility u/s 80IC of the Act, viz. whether at 25% or 100%, has already been examined and accepted during the earlier assessment proceedings, and into the consequent matter of arising and bringing to tax any disallowed portions of the deductions claimed u/s 80IC as incomes in the hands of the assessee. The ld Pr. CIT has directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the factual submissions so made by the assessee, and only if found correct and satisfactory, pass the necessary order u/s 143 of the Act dropping the matters in reference. If the contrary scenario of that the assessee's submissions and arguments are unsatisfactory is obtained in the said matter, such matter can be processed by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer for further action of assessment and consequent initiation/imposition of penalty as applicable under the statute. The assessee was granted liberty to adduce the facts as deemed relevant before the JAO in consequence to the impugned order and the JAO was directed to allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and re-verify the submissions already made. 41. We therefore have a situation where at the time of passing of the impugned order u/s 263, the ld Pr.CIT on examination of records found prima facie merit in the submissions of the assessee that the order so passed by the Assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. At the same time, ld Pr.CIT is of the opinion that the Jurisdictional Assessing officer should re-verify and re-examine the matter and where the 29 factual verification as so directed yield results inconsistent with the stand of the assessee, the assessment order so passed by the Assessing Officer would be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue in accordance with the Explanation 2(a) below section 263(1) of the Act. 42. Section 263 of the Act grants power to the Pr. CIT to call for and examine the record of the proceeding under the Act, and if he considers that any order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, to pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. The power to initiate revision proceedings can be exercised only if the two conditions are satisfied simultaneously, that is, the order passed by the Assessing Officer must be erroneous; and secondly, the order must be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and the ld Pr CIT has to be satisfied of the twin conditions been fulfilled and the satisfaction must be one which is objectively justifiable and cannot be the mere ipse dixit of the Commissioner. It is for the ld Pr.CIT to record his own satisfaction and such a satisfaction has to be in clear and unambiguous terms as to why he is of the opinion that the order so passed by the Assessing officer is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and such a satisfaction has to be recorded at the time of passing of the revisionary order u/s 263 of the Act. Such formation of opinion and recording of satisfaction cannot be deferred or made subject to or conditional upon subsequent action on part of the Assessing officer. There is no concept of prima facie satisfaction, conditional satisfaction or for that matter, delegated satisfaction for exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as can be seen in the instant case as it is a settled legal proposition that the powers have to be exercised by an authority who is authorized and competent to exercise such powers under the statue and not by any other authority. 43. As far as the invocation by the Ld. PCIT of Explanation 2(a) to section 263 of the Act is concerned, the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal had an occasion 30 to consider this aspect in the case of Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd Vs. Principal CIT (2017) 51 CCH 0473 (Delhi- Tribunal) wherein, the Delhi Benches, while relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 705/2017) has held that Explanation 2 cannot be stated to have overridden the law as interpreted by various High Courts, where the High Courts have held that before reaching the conclusion that the order of the Assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, the Commissioner himself has to undertake some enquiry to establish that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Similarly, the Coordinate Mumbai Benches in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane reported in TS-290-ITAT 2016 (Mumbai) has held that Explanation 2 to section 263 does not provide unfettered right to the ld PCIT to revise each and every order. It was held in the said case that it is the responsibility of the ld PCIT to show that the enquiry or verification conducted by the Assessing officer was not in accordance with the enquires or verification that would have been carried out by a prudent officer and the relevant findings therein read as under: “19. The law interpreted by the High Courts makes it clear that the Ld Pr. CIT, before holding an order to be erroneous, should have conducted necessary enquiries or verification in order to show that the finding given by the assessing officer is erroneous, the Ld Pr. CIT should have shown that the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. In the instant case, the Ld Pr. CIT has failed to do so and has simply expressed the view that the assessing officer should have conducted enquiry in a particular manner as desired by him. Such a course of action of the Ld Pr. CIT is not in accordance with the mandate of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act. The Ld Pr. CIT has taken support of the newly inserted Explanation 2(a) to sec. 263 of the Act. Even though there is a doubt as to whether the said explanation, which was inserted by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 1.4.2015, would be applicable to the year under consideration, yet we are of the view that the said Explanation cannot be said to have over ridden the law interpreted by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, referred above. If that be the case, then the Ld Pr. CIT can find fault with each and every assessment order, without conducting any enquiry or verification in order to establish that the assessment order is not sustainable in law and order for revision. He can also force the AO to conduct the enquiries in the manner preferred by Ld Pr. CIT, thus prejudicing the independent application of mind of the AO. Definitely, that could not be the intention of the legislature in inserting Explanation 2 to sec. 263 of the Act, since it would lead to unending litigations and there would not be any point of finality in the legal proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd Vs. ITO (1977)(106 ITR 1) that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings and the stale issues should not be reactivitated beyond a particular stage and the lapse of time must induce 31 repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. 20. Further clause (a) of Explanation states that an order shall be deemed to be erroneous, if it has been passed without making enquiries or verification, which should have been made. In our considered view, this provision shall apply, if the order has been passed without making enquiries or verification which a reasonable and prudent officer shall have carried out in such cases, which means that the opinion formed by Ld Pr. CIT cannot be taken as final one, without scrutinising the nature of enquiry or verification carried out by the AO vis- à-vis its reasonableness in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, in our considered view, what is relevant for clause (a) of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is whether the AO has passed the order after carrying our enquiries or verification, which a reasonable and prudent officer would have carried out or not. It does not authorise or give unfettered powers to the Ld Pr. CIT to revise each and every order, if in his opinion, the same has been passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. In our view, it is the responsibility of the Ld Pr. CIT to show that the enquiries or verification conducted by the AO was not in accordance with the enquries or verification that would have been carried out by a prudent officer. Hence, in our view, the question as to whether the amendment brought in by way of Explanation 2(a) shall have retrospective or prospective application shall not be relevant.” 44. In the instant case, we find that all the ld Pr. CIT has stated is that the factual matrix being the Assessment Years in which the expansions of the pertinent activities commenced and the legal position in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Aarham Softronics (supra) are to be carefully re-examined and re-verified by the Assessing Officer in matter under reference, being the question of proportion of deduction (25% versus 100%) which the assessee can claim u/s 80IC of the Act for the impugned assessment year 2017-18. There is however no discussion or findings by the ld Pr.CIT in respect of the nature of enquiry or verification so carried out by the AO vis-à-vis its reasonableness in the facts and circumstances of the case in the proceedings so completed u/s 147 r/w 144B of the Act. The Explanation 2(a) to Section 263 doesn’t give such unfettered powers to the ld PCIT and it is the responsibility of the ld PCIT to show that the enquiry or verification conducted by the Assessing officer was not in accordance with the enquires or verification that would have been carried out by a prudent officer in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 45. Having said that, since the emphasis of the ld. PCIT is on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aarham Softronics (Supra) and its 32 applicability in the instant case, we deem it appropriate to refer to the same. In the said case, the question of law for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was “Whether an assessee who sets up a new industry of a kind mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 80-IC of the Act and starts availing exemption of 100 per cent tax under sub-section (3) of Section 80-IC (which is admissible for five years) can start claiming the exemption at the same rate of 100% beyond the period of five years on the ground that the assessee has now carried out Substantial expansion in its manufacturing unit?”. Referring to the definition of “initial assessment year” and “substantial expansion” and the discussions made thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Hon’ble High Court wherein the latter has held that the moment substantial expansion is completed, the statutory definition of initial assessment year comes into play and consequently, the assessee becomes entitled to 100% deduction for five years commencing with completion of substantial expansion subject to maximum of total ten years for which deduction is allowed originally as well as on account of substantial expansion. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the provisions of Section 80IC were enacted with a view of encouraging enterprises to establish and set up units in States involving hilly areas to make them industrially advance States and where the said objectives are kept in mind, the irresistible conclusion would be to grant 100% deduction of the profits and gains from the year when the substantial expansion is completed. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the substantial expansion involves great deal of investment which has to be at least 50% in the Plant & Machinery of the book value before taking depreciation in any year and where such a expansion is carried out, not only there would be increase in production but generation of more employment as well which would benefit local population. It was held that it is for this reason that even where an existing unit complete substantial expansion, such unit also become entitled to avail the benefit of Section 80IC of the Act and it was held that there is no reason as to why 100% deduction of the profits and gains be not allowed to even those units 33 who had availed this deduction on setting up of a new unit and have now invested huge amount with substantial expansion of those units. In the instant case as well, it is an admitted fact that the substantial expansion was carried out on 31/03/2012 and as on the first day of previous year in which substantial expansion took place, total book value of the Plant and Machinery (before taking depreciation) was Rs. 35,28,074/- which increased by more than 50% to Rs. 82,72,428/- as on 31/03/2012 as per Form No. 10CCB duly submitted by the assessee company for A.Y 2012-13 and a copy thereof has been placed on record. It is further relevant to note that as a result of carrying out the substantial expansion, the total sales of the undertaking which was Rs. 79,83,57,343/- for the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y 2012-13 increased to Rs. 141,10,14,347/- for the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y 2013-14 as evident from Form No. 10CCB duly submitted by the assessee company for A.Y 2013-14 and a copy thereof has been placed on record. We therefore agree with the submissions of the Ld. AR that the assessee claim of 100% deduction on account of substantial expansion for the impugned assessment year is infact supported by the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 46. Further from the perusal of the record, it is manifestly clear that the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 for the reason that the assessee has claimed excess claim of deduction under section 80IC @ 100% as against reduced rate of 25% and during the course of reassessment proceeding, the AO issued notices calling for requisite information/documentation, in response, the assessee filed detailed submissions explaining its claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act. In its submission, the assessee referred to the relevant provision of Section 80IC, the CBDT Circular No. 7/2003 dt. 05/09/2003 wherein the benefit regarding substantial expansion has been explained by the CBDT and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Aarham Softronics and after taking into consideration the explanation and documentation so submitted by the assessee in terms of the Audit Report in Form No. 10CCB and having satisfied himself that the assessee is eligible for 100% deduction for the 34 impugned assessment year i.e. A.Y 2017-18, the AO has not drawn any adverse inference. We therefore find that the matter has been duly enquired into and examined by the AO during the course of reassessment proceedings and the AO did take into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT Vs. M/s Aarham Softronics and has allowed the claim of deduction so made by the assessee. The Ld. PCIT has merely referred the matter for re- examination and re-verification without pointing out as to how the AO has wrongly applied the legal preposition so laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 47. Further, merely the fact that the order so passed is cryptic doesn’t give the jurisdiction to ld PCIT to exercise the jurisdiction u/s 263 as what needs to be seen is the assessment records at the time of examination by the ld PCIT and which speak about the issue of notices, the submissions and documentation so submitted by the assessee which reflect due application of mind by the AO. The assessment order is reflection of conclusion of assessment proceedings and it is an accepted practice that only where an adverse view is taken against the assessee, the basis of arriving at such a adverse view find mention in the assessment/reassessment order which in turn allows the assessee to challenge and avail remedial action as so advised. 48. In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is our considered opinion that the Assessing officer, after calling for required information/documentation and after duly considering the explanations and documentation submitted before him, reached a rightful conclusion that the assessee is eligible for claim of 100% deduction u/s 80IC of the Act for the impugned assessment year 2017-18. In our view, such a view is clearly a plausible view which a reasonable and prudent officer could have taken and in absence of any further enquiry conducted by the ld PCIT and merely for the purposes of re-verification and re-examination of claim so allowed, the view so taken and order so passed by the Assessing officer cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT u/s 2263 cannot be sustained in the eyes 35 of law. The order so passed by the ld PCIT is therefore set-aside and that of the AO is sustained. 49. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/02/2025 Sd/- Sd/- परेश म. जोशी िवᮓम ᳲसह यादव (PARESH M. JOSHI) ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ᭠याियक सद᭭य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद᭭य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/ The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च᭛डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडᭅ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "
Other Referred Cases
PCIT vs Aartham Softronics [2019] 102 Taxmann.com 343, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC), G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. [2003] 263 ITR 255 (SC), Deepak Real Estate Developers (1) (P.) Ltd. 52 taxmann.com 75 (Raj.), Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83(Delhi), Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [2012] 28 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi HC), Hari Iron Trading Company vs CIT 2003 (5) TMI 48 (P&H), Ashish Rajpal [2009] 320 ITR 674 (Delhi), Vikash Polymers [2010] 194 Taxman 57 (Delhi), Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. (2015) 60 taxmann.com 243 (All), Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 62 Taxman 480 (SC), Broach Distt. Cooperative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd. v. CTT [1989] 177 ITR 418 (SC), CIT v. Strawboard Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 431 (SC), CIT v. Simpson & Co. (1980) 122 ITR 283 (Mad.), CIT v. Sanghi Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (1982) 134 ITR 623 (MP), CIT vs. UP State Agro Industrial Corpn. (1991) 188 ITR 370, 375(AII), CIT vs. Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co. (1959) 35 ITR 662, 673 (Bom), Capsulation Services Pvt. Ltd v. CIT, (1973) 91 ITR 566, 570 (Bom), CIT vs. JawaharBhattacharjee (2012) 20 taxmann.com 652/342 ITR 74/249 CTR 529 (Gau), CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H), Honble Delhi High Court in Income Tax Officer versus DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi), PCIT vs Shri P Narasimha Reddy (ITA no 97/2019), Ram Lal (ITA no 370/2022), Ganga Vinay Babu (ITA no 123/Hyd/2021), PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 705/2017), Narayan Tatu Rane (2017) 51 CCH 0473 (Delhi- Tribunal), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66/243 ITR 89 (SC), CIT v. JawaharBhattacharjee (2012) 20 taxmann.com 652/342 ITR 74/249 CTR 529 (Gau), CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H), Honble Delhi High Court in Income Tax Officer versus DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi), PCIT vs Shri P Narasimha Reddy (ITA no 97/2019), Ram Lal (ITA no 370/2022), Ganga Vinay Babu (ITA no 123/Hyd/2021)
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
360 Brand Audit (30 mins)
₹299
Contractor Indemnity Agreement
₹0
Affidavit - Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before ITAT - Type 2
Mehul₹0
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026