DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. SANGAM INFRATECH PVT. LTD., , BHILWARA

We find that the issues raised in all the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

First, we shall take up appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No. 56/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2009-10 being a lead case.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company, engaged in the business of manufacturing of TMT Bars. A search and seizure action was conducted at the business and residential premises of different members/associate concern of the Mantri-Soni Group of Jalna/Bhilwara and their family members and business concerns on 02- 05-2013 u/s. 132 of the Act. The AO issued notice u/s. 153A of the Act to the assessee on 13-02-2014 requiring to furnish the return of income for the year under consideration within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed letter dated 20-03- 2014 requesting the AO to treat the return of income dated 28-09-2009 declaring a total income of Rs.38,94,890/- in response to the notice u/s. 153A of the Act.

According to the AO, the assessee primarily engaged in the business of steel manufacturing in the Jalna/Wardha city and emerged as one of the leading group engaged in steel manufacturing. It has undertaken construction and erection work to setup its steel plant at Deoli Dist. Wardha, Maharashtra during the year under construction. The AR of the assessee attended assessment proceedings from time to time, furnished/produced all the details as sought vide notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Further, the assessee raised capital in the form of share application, share capital/premium and unsecured loans between A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2014-15 from Sangam Group, Mandhani Group and Mantri Group which is evident from para 6 of the assessment order. The AO added an amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- which was taken from M/s. Sangam

Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO in initiating proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act and passing assessment order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act is bad and invalid in the eye of law.

The ld. AR, Shri Dharmesh Shah submits that the issue raised in ground No. 1 is a legal issue which goes to the root of the case and argued that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Nashik granted approval u/s. 153D of the Act on mechanical basis without any independent application of mind. He drew our attention to the approval dated 21-03-2016 and submits that the said approval was granted subject to compliance merely mentioning various procedure and checks to be adopted while passing the final assessment order. By referring to para 2 of

By referring to letter dated 18-03-2016 sent by the AO to Jt. CIT seeking approval, he submits that the AO sent such common letter enclosing draft assessment orders in case of multiple entities for multiple years, apart from the assessee on 18-03-2016. He argued that the distance between Aurangabad and Nashik approximately 200 Kms. and the entire voluminous record relating to 49 assessment orders would have reached only at fag end of working day on 18-03-2016. He submits that since the approval was granted on 21-03-2016 the period of time was available to Jt. CIT is only one day which is not enough to look into all the facts and details of search proceedings, the detailed and voluminous orders containing number of evidences, documents, statements of various persons etc. He submits that the approval authority is expected to go through all the documents, records and the draft assessment order before granting its approval to pass the final assessment order. He argued that the provisions u/s. 153D of the Act contemplates granting of approval of higher authority with experience and knowledge to verify the quality of assessment order and the additions made are proper as per law or not. The approving authority has to apply its judicious mind to ensure the interest of the

In support of his contentions, he drew our attention to the case laws paper book containing to 174 pages. He referred to order of Lucknow Benches of Tribunal in the case of Navin Jain and Ors. Vs. DCIT reported in 91 ITR (Trib.) 682 (Lucknow) at page 3 of the paper book. He submits that the Lucknow Benches of Tribunal annulled assessment orders by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT and Another reported in 300 ITR 403 (SC) which held that the approval of the high ranking authority being an inbuilt protection against arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the AO, casts a very heavy duty on the said high-ranking authority to see it that the approval envisaged in the section is not turned into an empty ritual, further held that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. Further, he referred to the order of ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the case of Smt. Indra Bansal & Ors. Vs. ACIT and submits that the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench observed that Jt. CIT had failed to grant approval in terms of section 153D of the Act after application of mind but has rather carried out exercise in utmost haste and in a mechanical

By referring to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of M/s. Serajuddin & Co. in ITA Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 of 2022 and vehemently contended there was no sufficient time for verification of voluminous seized material by the approving authority to give approval u/s. 153D of the Act which clearly infers that there was no application of mind by such authority.

The ld. AR referred to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2015) 56 taxmann.com 390 (Madhya Pradesh) submits that the Jt. CIT has to be satisfied with objectivity on objective material and the mechanical way of recording satisfaction is unsustainable under law. The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh confirmed the order of ITAT for quashing the consequential assessment being passed without proper approval. He referred to page 162 of the paper book and argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) confirmed the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. He vehemently argued that that there was no sufficient time to Jt. CIT as the letter seeking approval by the AO was received on 18-03-2016 being Friday, 19, 20-03- 2016 being Holidays and giving approval on 21-03-2016 clearly establishes non-application of mind by the Jt. CIT while granting approval u/s. 153D of the Act. He prayed to quash the final assessment order dated 30-03- 2016 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act.

The ld. DR, Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari, CIT, submits that the assessment proceeding is a continuous process initiated just after the receipt of appraisal report and issue of notice u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. The assessment is completed under the active guidance and monitoring / supervision of JCIT/Addl.CIT. The assessment of search proceeding u/s. 153A is distinct from normal scrutiny assessment completed u/s 143(3). It is not a matter of application of mind in few days. The assessment of a search case is based on seized materials which are described elaborately in appraisal report. A copy of appraisal report is sent to AO as well as JCIT/Addl. CIT for deep scrutiny of the case incorporating all sensitive issues having revenue implications, instructions for further enquiry on specific issue. The JCIT/Addl. CIT as well as AO start applying their mind on receipt of appraisal report. The JCIT/Addl. CIT frequently goes through the seized documents and makes discussion from time to time with AO on his observations being a supervisory authority since the seized documents are running in hundreds of pages. It is not possible for JCIT/Addl. CIT to ask AO to handover the entire documents and details gathered by him for a long time to apply his mind. If this kind of practice is adopted, then the entire proceeding will get disturbed. Further, he submits that ongoing assessment proceedings require constant and regular supervision and guidance. It is not a matter of few days or one month for JCIT to go through records of entire proceedings and then apply his mind, by that time the period available to the AO for completion of assessment will be expired, and the direction, if any to be passed on to the AO for further enquiry or modification would not be complied with.

He vehemently argued that the process of assessment is continued under the regular supervision and guidance of JCIT / Addl.CIT and applies

Further, Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari, the ld. DR argued that the JCIT has applied his mind to the draft order to ascertain whether any specific

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Coming to the main contention of non-application of mind by the approving authority. The ld. AR placed reliance primarily on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of M/s. Serajuddin & Co. (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced here-in- below for ready reference :

On careful reading of the above judgment, we note that the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to observe that there should be some indication that the approving authority examined relevant material in detail while granting the approval u/s. 153D of the Act. The approval u/s. 153D is a mandatory requirement and such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. Such approval granted mechanically without application of mind by the Addl. CIT resulting in vitiating the assessment orders. We find in the present case that the AO sought approval u/s. 153D of the Act on 18-03-2016, the JCIT granted approval on 21-03-2016 and the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act was passed on 30-03- 2016 which clearly indicates that the approving authority granted approval in one day mechanically without examining the relevant material. According to the AO, the case of the assessee was covered by search action u/s. 132 of the Act conducted at Bhilwara concerning Mantri-Soni Group of Jalna/Bhilwara and their family members and business concerns at the business and residential premises of different members/associate which is evident from para 1 of the assessment order. Admittedly, the AO sought approval u/s. 153D of the Act in 49 assessment orders vide letter dated 18-03-2016 which is on record placed on by the ld. DR on 09-10-2023. The approving authority has to examine number of evidences, documents,

We find the department of Revenue filed SLP against the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of M/s. Serajuddin & Co. (supra) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the SLP © Diary No. 44989/2023. The relevant decision is reproduced as under :

On careful reading of the above, we note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere in the finding recorded by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of M/s. Serajuddin & Co. (supra) holding that the approval u/s. 153BD is mandatory requirement and such approval is not meant to be given mechanically, further, approval granted mechanically without application of mind vitiates the assessment orders.

In view of the above, let us examine the approval dated 21-03-2016 granted by the JCIT which is reproduced hereunder :

On an examination of the above, we find that approving authority i.e. JCIT having received the alleged draft orders for approval from AO, Aurangabad on 18-03-2016 and accorded his approval on 21-03-2016. The ld. AR vehemently contended the 19th and 20th March, 2016 were Saturday and Sunday holidays, respectively, there is no time left to JCIT to apply his mind in giving approval. On a close examination of the said approval from (a) to (j), we find the same are procedural in nature, but nowhere we find application of his mind with regard to facts and circumstances of the case, number of evidences, documents, statements of various persons etc. The provision u/s. 153D of the Act provides the prior approval of the JCIT is not required merely for direction but over all approval of draft assessments framed by the AO. We are unable to subscribe the arguments of ld. DR that the JCIT/Addl. CIT frequently goes through the seized documents and makes discussion from time to time with AO on his observations being a supervisory authority since the seized documents are running in hundreds of pages. It is not possible for JCIT/Addl. CIT to ask AO to handover the entire documents and details gathered by him for a long time to apply his mind. The requirement u/s. 153D of the Act for obtaining approval the JCIT is not procedural only, but a mandatory requirement as explained Circular No. 3 of 2008 dated 12-03- 2008 issued by the CBDT. Further, the above said approval clearly shows is a conditional approval subject to compliance in (a) to (j) which clearly establishes that the approval given by the JCIT was subjected to

In the light of the above, we note that the AO vide paras 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 7 of assessment order observed that the important findings noted during the course of search u/s. 132 and the post search inquiries regarding unsecured loans relating to 49 assessments. On perusal of the letter dated 18-03-2016 vide No.ABD/ACIT/CC-1/2015-16/1702 issued by the AO requesting approval from JCIT shows that the AO requested the approval u/s. 153D of the Act in 49 assessments involving A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2014-15. The said request letter shows no proof of number of evidences, documents, statements of various persons were annexed in support of draft assessment orders. In this regard, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Sapna Gupta reported in (2023) 147 taxmann.com 288 (Allahabad) held “it is humanly impossible to go through the records of 85 cases in one day to apply independent mind to appraise the material before the Approving Authority. The conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that it was a mechanical exercise of power, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record.” Admittedly, in the present case, 49 assessments are involved from A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2014-15, therefore, in our opinion, it is humanly impossible to go through the records of 49 cases in one day i.e. on 21-03-2016. Further, it clearly shows the office of AO is

The ld. AR placed on record the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2015) 56 taxmann.com 390 (Madhya Pradesh) which his at Page No. 160 of case laws paper book. On a careful examination of the same, we note that in pursuance of search, the assessments processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act were reopened by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of certain reasons recorded. The assessee objected to the same before the Assessing Officer, which was rejected. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The CIT(A) quashed the said reassessment by holding the action of JCIT in according sanction was without application of mind which was done in a mechanical manner. The ITAT upheld the order of CIT(A). The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the appeal of Revenue by observing no question of law involved warranting reconsideration. The relevant extract of the said decision as under for ready reference : “7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied". In the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:- "The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format "Yes, I am satisfied" which indicates as if he was to sign only on the dotted line. Even otherwise also, the exercise is shown to have been performed in less than 24 hours of time which also goes to indicate that the Commissioner did not apply his mind at all while granting sanction. The satisfaction has to be with objectivity on objective material." 8. If the case in hand is analysed on the basis of the aforesaid principle, the mechanical way of recording satisfaction by the Joint Commissioner, which accords sanction for issuing notice under section 148, is clearly unsustainable and we find that on such consideration both the appellate authorities have interfered into the matter. In doing so, no error has been committed warranting reconsideration. 9. As far as explanation to Section 151, brought into force by Finance Act, 2008 is concerned, the same only pertains to issuance of notice and not with regard to the manner of recording satisfaction. That being so, the said amended provision does not help the revenue. 10. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the learned appellate authorities and the law laid down in the case of Arjun Singh (supra), we see no question of law involved in the matter, warranting reconsideration. 11. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.”

We find the Department of Revenue filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP in favour of the assessee which reported in (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) which is at page No. 162 of the case laws paper book. We find the facts and circumstances relating to challenging the approval granted by the JCIT on 21-03-2016 are similar to the facts in the case of S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is applicable to the facts on hand, therefore, the approval granted by the JCIT on 21-03-2016 is invalid, consequently, the final assessment order dated 30-03-2016 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is liable to be quashed.

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) reported in 300 ITR 403 (SC) at page No. 142 of the case laws paper book, while discussing the requirement of prior approval, opined that the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an inbuilt protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer, casts a very heavy duty on the said high ranking authority to see to it that the requirement of the previous approval, envisaged in the Section is not turned into an empty ritual. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case.

In view of our discussion made here-in-above, considering the submissions of ld. AR, ld. DR, case laws relied on and respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of M/s. Serajuddin & Co. (supra) which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28-11-2023 in SLP(C) No. 026338/2023, we hold that the approval dated 21-03-2016 granted by the JCIT u/s. 153D of the Act is without application of mind, therefore, invalid under law. Consequently, the final assessment order dated 30-03-2016 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act fails and quashed.

In view of our decision in ground No. 1 in quashing final assessment order dated 30-03-2016, ground Nos. 2 to 4 becomes academic, requiring no adjudication.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

We find ground No. 1 raised in this appeal is similar to ground No. 1 raised in IT(SS)A No. 56/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2009-10, wherein, we allowed ground No. 1 raised by the assessee and held approval dated 21-03-2016 is invalid for the reason of non-application of mind, consequently, quashed the final assessment order dated 30-03-2016 passed in pursuance of such invalid approval dated 21-03-2016. The view taken by us in ground No. 1 in IT(SS)A No. 56/PUN/2022 is equally applicable to ground No. 1 in IT(SS) No. 57/PUN/2022. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

In view of our decision in ground No. 1 in quashing final assessment order dated 30-03-2016, ground Nos. 2 to 4 becomes academic, requiring no adjudication.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

We find ground No. 1 raised in this appeal is similar to ground No. 1 raised in IT(SS)A No. 56/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2009-10, wherein, we allowed ground No. 1 raised by the assessee and held approval dated 21-03-2016 is invalid for the reason of non-application of mind, consequently, quashed the final assessment order dated 30-03-2016 passed in pursuance of such invalid approval dated 21-03-2016. The view taken by us in ground No. 1 in IT(SS)A No. 56/PUN/2022 is equally applicable to ground No. 1 in IT(SS) No. 58/PUN/2022. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

In view of our decision in ground No. 1 in quashing final assessment order dated 30-03-2016, ground Nos. 2 to 7 becomes academic, requiring no adjudication.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

We find ground No. 1 raised in this appeal is similar to ground No. 1 raised in IT(SS)A No. 56/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2009-10, wherein, we allowed ground No. 1 raised by the assessee and held approval dated 21-03-2016 is invalid for the reason of non-application of mind, consequently, quashed the final assessment order dated 30-03-2016 passed in pursuance of such invalid approval dated 21-03-2016. The view taken by us in ground No. 1 in IT(SS)A No. 56/PUN/2022 is equally applicable to ground No. 1 in IT(SS) No. 59/PUN/2022. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

In view of our decision in ground No. 1 in quashing final assessment order dated 30-03-2016, ground Nos. 2 to 6 becomes academic, requiring no adjudication.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

We find ground No. 1 raised in this appeal is similar to ground No. 1 raised in IT(SS)A No. 56/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2009-10, wherein, we allowed ground No. 1 raised by the assessee and held approval dated 21-03-2016 is invalid for the reason of non-application of mind, consequently, quashed the final assessment order dated 30-03-2016 passed in pursuance of such invalid approval dated 21-03-2016. The view taken by us in ground No. 1 in IT(SS)A No. 56/PUN/2022 is equally applicable to ground No. 1 in IT(SS) No. 60/PUN/2022. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

In view of our decision in ground No. 1 in quashing final assessment order dated 30-03-2016, ground Nos. 2 to 8 becomes academic, requiring no adjudication.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

We find ground No. 1 raised in this appeal is similar to ground No. 1 raised in IT(SS)A No. 56/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2009-10, wherein, we allowed ground No. 1 raised by the assessee and held approval dated 21-03-2016 is invalid for the reason of non-application of mind, consequently, quashed

In view of our decision in ground No. 1 in quashing final assessment order dated 30-03-2016, ground Nos. 2 to 5 becomes academic, requiring no adjudication.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In this appeal, the Revenue challenged the action of CIT(A) in restricting the undisclosed income to 4% of the total unaccounted sales. Since, we have taken a view in ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 56/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2009-10 in quashing the final assessment order dated 30-03-2016 is bad under law treating the prior approval dated 21-03-2016 is invalid. In view of the same, the issue raised in ground Nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal does not survive, as it becomes infructuous. Thus, ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

In this also appeal, the Revenue challenged the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act. Since, we have taken a view

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

We find the Revenue filed three grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue challenging the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of protective basis.

We note that the issue raised in this appeal also covered by the approval granted by the JCIT dated 21-03-2016 u/s. 153D of the Act, wherein, we held the same as invalid and quashed the final assessment order dated 30-03-2016. In view of the same, the issue raised in ground Nos. 1 to 3 in this appeal does not survive, as it becomes infructuous. Thus, ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

We find the Revenue filed three grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue challenging the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of protective basis.

We note that the issue raised in this appeal also covered by the approval granted by the JCIT dated 21-03-2016 u/s. 153D of the Act, wherein, we held the same as invalid and quashed the final assessment order dated 30-03-2016. In view of the same, the issue raised in ground Nos. 1 to 3 in this appeal does not survive, as it becomes infructuous. Thus, ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

We find the Revenue filed three grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue challenging the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of protective basis.

We note that the issue raised in this appeal also covered by the approval granted by the JCIT dated 21-03-2016 u/s. 153D of the Act, wherein, we held the same as invalid and quashed the final assessment order dated 30-03-2016. In view of the same, the issue raised in ground Nos. 1 to 3 in this appeal does not survive, as it becomes infructuous. Thus, ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

We find the Revenue filed three grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue challenging the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of protective basis.

We note that the issue raised in this appeal also covered by the approval granted by the JCIT dated 21-03-2016 u/s. 153D of the Act, wherein, we held the same as invalid and quashed the final assessment order dated 30-03-2016. In view of the same, the issue raised in ground Nos. 1 to 3 in this appeal does not survive, as it becomes infructuous. Thus, ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

We find the Revenue filed three grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue challenging the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of protective basis.

We note that the issue raised in this appeal also covered by the approval granted by the JCIT dated 21-03-2016 u/s. 153D of the Act, wherein, we held the same as invalid and quashed the final assessment order dated 30-03-2016. In view of the same, the issue raised in ground Nos. 1 to 3 in this appeal does not survive, as it becomes infructuous. Thus, ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

We find the Revenue filed three grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue challenging the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of protective basis.

We note that the issue raised in this appeal also covered by the approval granted by the JCIT dated 21-03-2016 u/s. 153D of the Act, wherein, we held the same as invalid and quashed the final assessment order dated 30-03-2016. In view of the same, the issue raised in ground Nos. 1 to 3 in this appeal does not survive, as it becomes infructuous. Thus, ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

To sum up, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed and the all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.