ITO 3(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. EVERLON SYNTHETICS P.LTD, MUMBAI

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/s Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., v. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAACE0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Revenue by Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal Assessee Company by : Shri P.K. Parida & Ms. Sanjukta Chowdhury

सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 25-2-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 23-05-2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member

This appeal, filed by the Revenue, being ITA No. 6965/Mum/2013, is directed against the appellate order dated 20-09-2013 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 6, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)” ), for the assessment year 2006-07, the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) arising from the order dated 30-8-2011 passed by the learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter called “the Act”).

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 2

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 3

“The assessee company during the previous year had received relief amounting to Rs. 3,44,02,155/- on account of over draft and other facilities. Out of this amount Rs. 2,06,82,471/- was transferred to revenue receipt and an amount of Rs. 1,37,19,684/- was transferred to capital reserve. The amount of Rs. 1,37,19,684/- is not offered by the assessee company considering it as capital receipt, neither it is brought under taxation in course of the assessment. As the money was received by the assessee company in the course of carrying on his business the same has become assessee company’s own money, and relief on overdraft on the same should be treated as cessation of liability and taken as income of the previous year under consideration u/s 41……”

The assessee company submitted before the AO in the re-assessment proceedings that section 41 of the Act has no application on this issue as the ITA 6965/Mum/2013 4

cessation and remission is not on account of a trading liability, and the amount transferred to capital reserve is on capital account and the amount was never claimed as deduction while computing total income in any earlier previous year.

The contentions of the assessee company were rejected by the A.O., as in its Balance Sheet in ‘Reserves and Surplus’ at schedule B, there was an addition of Rs. 1,37,19,684/- in the Capital Reserves, while Rs.2,06,82,471/- was credited under the head ‘Exceptional Income’ in the Profit and Loss Account. Both the entries are explained by the assessee company as :

“In view of one time settlement with bankers, the company has been granted relief which have been appropriated to capital receipts and revenue receipts as per treatment given by bankers.” .

The assessee company submitted that since as per the last bank statement of Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited , the Non Performing account(NPA) in their books showed a balance of Rs.1,37,19,684/- , the assessee company for the sake of simplicity , transferred the said amount of Rs.1,37,19,684/- to the Capital Reserves Account which was not offered for taxation, and transferred the balance amount of Rs.2,06,82,471/- to the Profit and Loss Account and offered the same for taxation.

The A.O. held that the assessee company does not have credible explanation about the bifurcation of the amount of settlement as revenue receipt or capital receipt. The relief received from the bank on overdraft of Rs. 2,06,82,471/- was offered for taxation as revenue receipt, while the assessee company has no reason to treat the remaining amount of Rs. 1,37,19,684/- as capital receipt. Thus, the sum of Rs. 1,37,19,684/- was added to the total

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 5

income of the assessee company by the A.O , vide assessment orders dated 30.08.2011 passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act.

Without prejudice to the above, it was held by the AO that as the money was received by the assessee company in the course of carrying on their business, even if the overdraft amount of Rs. 3,44,02,155/- received from the bank are considered as capital receipt of earlier previous years, even though it is not taxable in the year of receipt as being of the revenue character, the amount changes its character when the amount becomes assessee company’s own money because of the settlement with the bankers. Thus, the AO held that the amount should be treated as revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee company. To support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., (1996)222 ITR 344 [SC]. The AO held that the assessee company has offered for taxation as revenue receipt on the relief allowed by the Bank on the amount of Rs. 2,06,82,471/- , and by the same treatment the amount of Rs. 1,37,19,684/- is also taxable as revenue receipts in the hands of the assessee company and hence the sum was added to the total income of the assessee company by the AO , vide assessment orders dated 30.08.2011 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act.

raised by the A.O. and in response, the assessee company had vide submissions dated 11.11.2008 furnished entire particulars with respect to the one time settlement reached with the Bank and the accounting treatment as adhered to by the assessee company in its books of account. The various details regarding one time settlement with the Bank were filed before the A.O. including , bank statements for the last six years from 1-4-2000 to 31-03- 2006 , letter from the Bank offering settlement dated 22.12.2005 and the Bank Certificate dated 28th March, 2006 settling the Bank account . The assessee company contended before the learned CIT(A) that it transferred Rs.1,37,19,684/- to Capital Reserve Account which was brought to the notice of the AO, while the rest of the relief which amounted to Rs. 2,06,82,471/- was transferred to Profit and Loss Account under the head ‘Exceptional Incomes’. The assessee company submitted before the learned CIT(A) that the assessee company in reply to notice u/s 148 of the Act contended before the AO that section 41 of the Act has no application as the cessation of the liability of Rs. 1,37,19,684/- was not on account of trading liability and hence the same was capital in nature. It was contended by the assessee company before the learned CIT(A) that after considering the assessee’s company reply, the A.O. held that the amount of Rs. 1,37,19,684/- is taxable as revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee company u/s 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability. It was submitted by the assessee company during the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) that the return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on 29th November, 2006 by the assessee company with the Revenue was initially accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act , but a scrutiny assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) on 24th November, 2008 by the Revenue accepting the returned income. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act, the issue of bank settlement and consequential relief granted by the bank was discussed and deliberated by the A.O. on whose request the assessee company had furnished the entire particulars with regard to the settlement

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 7

reached and the accounting treatment adhered to by the assessee company in its books of account. It was submitted that the detailed submissions were made before the A.O. vide reply dated 11th November, 2008 in original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act. The assessee company also filed bank statement for the last six years from 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2006. The assessee company submitted that it filed before the AO a letter received from the bank offering the settlement dated 22nd December, 2005 and the bank certificate dated 28th March, 2006 confirming the settling of the bank account. The assessee company has shown capital receipt of Rs. 1,37,19,684 which was specifically made known to the A.O. . On the reliefs granted, the assessee company had transferred Rs. 2,06,82,471/- to its P&L account and Rs. 1,37,19,684/- to its capital reserve account. The AO after examining the various details and applying his mind on the materials and the submission made by the assessee company, had passed the original scrutiny assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 24th November, 2008 , as nothing was withheld by the assessee company from the AO. No new tangible material has come into the possession of the A.O. which could indicate that income has escaped assessment. It was stated before the learned CIT(A) by the assessee company that the reopening of the concluded assessment was made due to the audit objections which is not permissible under law and the action of the A.O. is not justified . The assessee company submitted that the audit objections has persuasive or suggestive value and for acquiring jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act, there has to be an independent reasons to believe based on possession of tangible material / information with the AO having live nexus and close link with the formation of belief that the income has escaped assessment. The assessee company relied on the following decisions to support its proposition’s:-

(1) 294 ITR 32 (Bom) IL&Fs Investment Managers Ltd. v. ACIT (2) (2009)318 ITR 295 (Del) Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd. v. CIT

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 8

(3) 65 DTR (Guj) 385 Cardila Healthcare Ltd. v. ACIT

Thus, the assessee company requested the learned CIT(A) that the notice u/s 148 of the Act is defective and should be treated as invalid. It was also submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act cannot be issued to make roving and fishing enquiries and no action can be taken due to the change of opinion. Reopening was based merely on a change of opinion, the notice u/s 148 is hence defective and the A.O. has without any tangible material or independent reasoning re-opened the concluded assessment , the issue of notice u/s 148 should be treated as nullity and also the consequential proceedings against the assessee company be dropped . The assessee company relied upon the following decisions:-

(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), Kelvinator India Ltd. 2. (2012)254 CTR 221(SC), Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. 3. (2012) 252 CTR 78 (Bom. HC), Monitor India (P) Ltd. 4. (2012) 68 DTR 85 (Bom), NYK Line (India) Ltd. 5. (2011)349 ITR 150 (Bom), Direct Information P. Ltd. 6. (2010) 332 ITR 587 (Bom), IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd. 7. (2010) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), Jet Airways India Ltd. 8. (2010)329 ITR 257 (Bom), 3I Infotech Ltd. 9. (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom), Rallis India Ltd. 10. (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom) Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 11. {2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom) Siemens Information System Ltd..v. ACIT

The assessee company submitted that it had truly and fully disclosed all the materials while filing its return of income and during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act, which material had been duly considered by the A.O. while framing the original assessment order dated 24.11.2008 u/s 143(3) of the Act by the AO. The said

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 9

information with respect to the one time bank settlement and relief received by the assessee company had already been disclosed in the Audited Balance Sheet , Audited P&L account, Directors Report and Notes to accounts by the Statutory Auditor, hence, there was no suppression of the material facts. There was no failure on the part of the assessee company to fully and truly disclose the material facts necessary for the assessment , was the contention of the assessee company before the learned CIT(A). The assessee company relied upon the following decisions:-

The assessee company submitted that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee company had made true and full disclosure of all material facts at the time of assessment proceedings, hence, the action of the Revenue in reopening of the concluded assessment is not correct. To support this contention of the assessee company, the following case laws were relied upon:-

The assessee company submitted that thus the reopening of the assessment based on change of opinion is not permissible. To support this contention, the assessee company relied upon the decision in the case of [2010] 321 ITR 431 (Del) CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd. The assessee company also relied upon the decision in the case of [2011] 334 ITR 420 (Guj) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Dy. CIT and judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court Full Bench in the case [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del) CIT v. Usha International Ltd. to contend that the assessee company has truly and fully disclosed all the material necessary for the assessment and no new tangible material has come into possession of the AO

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 10

and this is a case of reopening of the concluded assessment based on change of opinion which is not permissible The assessee company was asked by the A.O. to produce the details with regard to bank settlement and how it had treated the benefit derived proportionately into its P&L account and into its Capital Reserve account for which the assessee company submitted written submission dated 11th November, 2008.The assessee company also submitted the bank statement of the Bank overdraft account to demonstrate and prove that the proceeds of the bank overdraft account were utilized for the purposes of acquisition of Plant and Machinery and construction of Building for it’s manufacturing unit. Thus, the A.O. took cognizance of the issue of bank settlement relief with its treatment in the books of account at the original scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act. Thus it was the contention of the assessee company, it is only a change of opinion on which the issue of notice u/s 148 is not tenable in view of various case laws decided by the Hon’ble Court’s decision relied upon by the assessee company as stated above. The assessee company submitted that it is an undisputed and admitted position that the money out of the Bank overdraft amount was utilized for making advance payment for plant and machinery and factory building construction for the manufacturing unit of the assessee company .

The learned CIT(A) after considering the afore-stated submissions of the assessee company and the facts of the case observed that a scrutiny assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by the A.O. on 24th November, 2008 and during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the issue of bank settlement and consequential relief granted by the bank was discussed and deliberated upon by the A.O. The A.O. had specifically made enquiries from the assessee company regarding the one time bank settlement and the assessee company had furnished the particulars with respect to the onetime settlement reached with the bankers. The accounting treatment as ITA 6965/Mum/2013 11

adhered by the assessee company in the books of account was also disclosed and the detailed submissions were made by the assessee company to the A.O. on 11th November, 2008 with respect to the relevant issue under consideration. The assessee company during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act duly filed the bank statements for the last 6 years from 1st April 2000 to 31st March, 2006 , a letter from the bank showing the settlement dated 22nd December, 2005 and the bank certificate dated 28th March, 2006 settling the Bank Loan account. The assessee company has disclosed a sum of Rs. 1,37,19,684/- as capital receipt and Rs. 2,06,82,471/- as revenue receipt transferred to its P&L account. Thus it was held by the learned CIT(A), it is evident that the issue of taxability of Rs. 1,37,19,684/- was already discussed and deliberated upon by the A.O. at the time of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act and accordingly the assessment order was passed on 24th November, 2008. Thus, the learned CIT(A) held that it is evident that this is a case of change of opinion on the basis of which the assessment has been reopened and it is a settled law that the assessment cannot be reopened merely on the basis of change of opinion. The learned CIT(A) discussed the following case laws:-

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 12

(2002) 256 ITR 1 (del) 9. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd., (1978)114 ITR 404 (AP) 10. Rallis India Ltd, (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom)

Based upon the above discussions and case laws, the learned CIT(A) observed that it is clear that if the issue has already been considered by the A.O. during the original assessment proceedings, the assessment cannot be reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of change of opinion because if the issue has been considered during the original assessment proceedings, it has to be presumed that all aspects pertaining to the said issue have been considered, hence, the decision on the said issue cannot be reviewed otherwise it will amount to giving the A.O.’s power to review his own faulty decision which cannot be permitted under law. Such cases are nothing but change of opinion. Only when fresh tangible material or information is available with the A.O. and the A.O. has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment, then the assessment can be reopened u/s 147 of the Act within 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the instant case, no such fresh tangible material is available with the AO for which the assessment can be reopened and in fact during the original assessment proceedings , the very same amount of Rs. 1,37,19,684/- declared as capital receipt was considered by the A.O. and the explanation of the assessee company was accepted. Thus, it could not be held that the A.O. had any fresh material or information in his possession on the basis of which he could believe that the income has escaped assessment. There was no failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose all materials facts. The assessment has been reopened only on the basis of change of opinion and thus the proceeding was held to be invalid by the learned CIT(A) vide appellate orders dated 20-09-2013 and the additions so made by the AO of Rs.1,37,19,684/- vide orders dated 30.08.2011 passed u/s. 143(3) read with Section 147 of the ITA 6965/Mum/2013 13

Act was ordered to be deleted by the learned CIT(A) vide orders dated 20.09.2013. The assessee company also presented its detailed arguments on merit before the learned CIT(A), which are detailed by the learned CIT(A) in his appellate orders dated 20-09-2013. The learned CIT(A) considered the arguments of the assessee company on merit, however, since the reopening was held to be invalid and the reassessment order was annulled by the learned CIT(A), thus, the learned CIT(A) held that the ground of appeals on merits has become academic, hence, the learned CIT(A) considered it not necessary to adjudicate the said grounds of appeal vide appellate orders dated 20-9-2013. 8. Aggrieved by the appellate orders dated 20-9-2013 of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Bank to the assessee company in the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act.

submitted that the A.O. has passed the assessment order dated 24.11.2008 u/s. 143(3) of the Act after considering the reply of the assessee company. There was complete note given in the Audited Balance Sheet, Audited P&L account , notes to the accounts and in the Director’s report regarding the relief received by the assessee company which is placed in paper book pages 4 to 44 filed with the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee company submitted that the reopening u/s 147/148 of the Act of the concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act has been done which is based upon the audit objection of the Revenue audit team which is not permissible under law. The ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court Full Bench in the case [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del) CIT v. Usha International Ltd., decision of the Ahmedabad Benches of the ITAT in the case of Sweta Organisors Private Limited v. ACIT (2008)118 TTJ 426(Ahd. Trib.) and contended that this is merely a change of opinion by the A.O. , while all the material facts were placed before the A.O. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee company is loss making Polyester Texturised/Twisted Yarn manufacturing unit. There was an outstanding default with the bank whereby loans had become NPA. The matter went upto the DRT and BIFR. The onetime settlement was entered into with the bankers whereby total relief of Rs.3.44 crores was granted, of which Rs.2.07 crores was transferred to revenue account and offered for taxation, while Rs.1.37 crores was transferred to capital reserves being the amount outstanding in the overdraft account as per bank as on 31-03-2006 . The assessee company drew our attention to paper book page 29 whereby the Audited P&L account is placed and under the head ‘exceptional income’ there was a credit of Rs. 2.07 crores, which was offered for taxation. Similarly, the ld. Counsel submitted vide paper book page 31, there was under head ‘Reserves and Surplus’ credit to the capital reserves of Rs. 1.37 crores, which is the amount remaining outstanding on 31-03-2006 in the overdraft bank account as per the bank books of accounts, which was evidenced by the bank statement placed at ITA 6965/Mum/2013 16

paper book page 45A. Thus, in nutshell, the ld. counsel submitted that the reopening of the concluded assessment has been done based on change of opinion which is based upon the audit objections, which is not permissible under law whereas all the details were furnished before the A.O. vide letter dated 11th November, 2008 which is placed in the paper book page 45 during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act which culminated into an assessment orders dated 24.11.2008 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.

(2000) 241 ITR 856(Mad.) and in the case of Som Dutt Builders Private Limited v. DCIT (2006)98 ITD 78(Kol). The ld. D.R. submitted that there is no necessity that the information which is received by the A.O. should be an external information for reopening of concluded assessments u/s 147/1148

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 17

of the Act .The ld. DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Company v. CIT (1976)102 ITR 287(SC). The Ld DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited (2007) 161 Taxman 316(SC) . It was submitted by ld DR that the information could be received from the Revenue audit party where merely information as to the escapement of income is provided by the audit party and he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. PVS Beedies Private Limited (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) He submitted that the income has escaped assessment and the Revenue has rightly reopened the assessment based upon the information received by the AO from the Revenue audit team which is in itself a tangible material. The ld. DR further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979)119 ITR 996(SC) and that the audit team has not interpreted law but merely provided information as to the escapement of income relying upon the decision in the case of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. First Leasing Company of India Limited (2001) 241 ITR 248(Mad.) and submitted that the assessment order is a dumb document, there is no application of mind by the AO while framing the original assessment order dated 24.11.2008 u/s 143(3) of the Act and hence there is no change of opinion by the AO while re-opening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act and he concluded that the assessment was rightly reopened by the Revenue.

12.We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record including the case laws cited by both the parties. We have observed that the assessment in the instant case of the assessee company was originally completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the Revenue vide assessment orders dated 24th November, 2008. The concluded assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act has been sought to be re-opened u/s 147/148 of the ITA 6965/Mum/2013 18

Act in the instant case by the Revenue within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year by issuance and serving of the notice u/s 148(1) of the Act dated 28-03-2011, after recording of the reasons u/s 148(2) of the Act for re-opening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act. The said reasons recorded for re-opening of the concluded assessment was duly supplied by the Revenue to the assessee company. We have observed that the assessee company has entered into one-time settlement agreement with the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited (“the Bank”), whereby the assessee company has been given relief/waiver of Rs.3.44 crores on one time settlement of loan liability with the Bank . Out of relief of Rs.3.44 crores received by the assessee company from the Bank on one time settlement of loan liabilities, the assessee company transferred Rs. 2.07 crores to the Profit and Loss account and offered the same for taxation , while the balance amount of the relief being Rs.1.37 crores loan liability waiver by the Bank was the amount outstanding to be payable of Rs. 1.37 crores as on 31-03-2006 by the assessee company as per the books of accounts of the Bank vide bank statement of the overdraft account of the bank being part of the NPA amount , which was transferred by the assessee company to Capital Reserves Account and the same was not offered for taxation by the assessee company being termed as capital waiver/relief. The assessee company duly declared and disclosed the one time settlement arrived at with the Bank for settling its bank loans outstanding in the Directors Report, Audited Balance Sheet , Audited Profit and Loss Account and in the audited notes forming part of the accounts , which were all filed before the Revenue before the original assessment stood concluded vide assessment orders u/s. 143(3) dated 24.11.2008. The A.O. during the course of the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act duly enquired about the onetime settlement entered into by the assessee company with the Bank and the details thereof including the relief/waiver obtained by the assessee company from the Bank. The assessee company vide its ITA 6965/Mum/2013 19

reply/submissions dated 11th November, 2008 during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act has duly replied and given all the details along with onetime settlement agreement entered into with the Bank, the bank statement from 1.4.2000 to 31-3-2006, a letter from the bank offering settlement dated 22nd December 2005 as well as the bank certificate dated 28th March, 2006 settling the loan liability accounts of the assessee company. The assessee company has duly explained that the capital relief / waiver of Rs. 1.37 crores has been granted by the Bank which is transferred to the Capital Reserve account , while Rs. 2.07 crores has been transferred to the revenue receipt, which was supported by the Audited Financial Statements and the return of income filed by the assessee company with the Revenue. Thus, there was a true and full disclosure by the assessee company before the AO in the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) with respect to the waiver/relief’s obtained by the assessee company under one time settlement with the bankers of Rs.3.44 crores with respect to its NPA loan liability which was also subject matter of litigation with Debt Recovery Tribunal and BIFR. The factum of this letter dated 11-11-2008 submitted by the assessee company before the AO did find mention in the audit objection letter dated 24-09-2010 issued by Senior Audit Officer/LAP-IX, which was the basis for re-opening of the concluded assessment . Thus , the contentions of the revenue that no such query relating to one time settlement with the banker and consequent relief / waiver obtained by the assessee company , was ever raised by the AO during the original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act and no such reply dated 11.11.2008 was ever given by the assessee company during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act because nothing has been discussed by the AO about this one time settlement with the banker and the relief so obtained by the assessee company in his assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.11.2008 , the afore-stated contentions of the ld. DR

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 20

are not correct and are devoid of any merit and are hereby rejected based on the facts as emerging from the records as set out above. Nothing contrary has been brought on record by the Revenue to substantiate the bald contentions of the ld DR nor any affidavit has been filed by the Revenue to this effect to disprove the contentions of the assessee company that there was complete and true disclosures of all the facts relating to the one time settlement arrived at with the bankers and relief obtained by the assessee company under the settlement with the bankers, which were submitted by the assessee company vide letter dated 11-11-2008 and also vide audited financial statements , Directors Report and notes to the accounts filed with the Revenue . The A.O. was having all the documents vide letter dated 11th November, 2008 given by the assessee company during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act, which is placed at paper book page 45 to 45C filed with the Tribunal along with disclosures in Audited Financial Statements, Director Report and notes to accounts filed with the Revenue by the assessee company which are also placed in paper book page 4-44. The A.O. after considering the reply/submissions of the assessee company along with the bank statements , bank correspondence, bank certificates and disclosures in the audited financial statements as set out above with respect to the one time settlement with the bankers and relief / waivers allowed by the bankers to the assessee company, framed the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 24-11-2008 accepting the contentions of the asssessee company. Normally , when the assessment orders are framed by the Revenue u/s 143(3) of the Act, it normally contains discussions with respect to which there is difference of opinion between the tax-payer and the Revenue warranting addition to the disclosed income by the tax-payer in the return of income filed with the Revenue, and the issues where there is a consensus between the Revenue and tax-payer and consequentially no additions are warranted to the disclosed income of the tax-payer are not included in the assessment orders. Thus, the A.O. has duly

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 21

applied his mind and accepted the contentions of the assessee company that the capital relief of loan outstanding to be payable as per the books of accounts of the Bank reflected in the bank statement of Rs.1.37 crores which was credited by the assessee company to capital reserve and not offered to tax, is on a capital field and waiver thereof does not result into income exigible to tax and hence no additions were made while framing assessment orders dated 24.11.2008 framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thus, the opinion was clearly formed by the A.O. as per the facts emerging from the records that the said amount of capital relief of Rs.1.37 crores is not exigible to tax , while the AO also accepted the contentions of the assessee company that Rs.2.07 crores is exigible to tax as revenue receipts. However, later on the Revenue re-opened u/s 147/148 of the Act , the concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act based on the audit objections by the audit team vide letter of Senior Audit Officer/LAP-IX dated 24-09-2010 that income has escaped assessment as the assessee company has not offered to tax Rs.1.37 crores being relief received by the assessee company on one time settlement with the bankers which is exigible to tax as the amount was received by the assessee company in the course of carrying on its business , the same amount became the assessee company money , the same should be treated as cessation of the liability and be exigible to tax u/s 41 of the Act , vide audit objection dated 24-09-2010. On merits also it is the say of the assessee company that the proceeds of the bank overdraft account had been utilized by the assessee company for acquisition of Plant and Machinery and construction of building for the manufacturing unit of the assessee company for which evidences were placed on record and hence the loan liability vide bank overdraft account were utilized on capital field. It is also the say of the company on merits that the said relief of Rs.1.37crores being on capital field was never ever taken into account by the assessee company for claiming the deductions as an expenditure or trading liability under the provisions of the Act since the availment of the said bank overdraft by the assessee company

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 22

and hence relief/waiver thereof the balance outstanding to be payable of Rs.1.37 crores as included in the NPA amount cannot be exigible to tax u/s.41 of the Act as the same is not the cessation of the trading liability as the same were never being claimed or allowed as deduction as an trading expenditure or liability by the Revenue while computing the income of the assessee company chargeable to tax . Be that it may be, in our considered view, the A.O. has duly applied his mind in the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act before concluding assessment vide orders u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.11.2008 with respect to the one time settlement entered into by the assessee company with its bankers and the consequent relief’s so obtained by the assessee company for which full and complete disclosures were made by the assessee company in its Directors Report, Audited Financial Statements and audited notes to accounts as well reply/submissions dated 11-11-2008 in response to the query of the AO , the said reply dated 11-11-2008 was submitted by the assessee company along with necessary enclosures of bank statements and certificates as set out above, which culminated into an assessment orders dated 24.11.2008 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act whereby the AO accepted the contentions of the assessee company that the waiver/relief of the balance outstanding amount of Rs.1.37 crores payable as per bank statement in the NPA overdraft account is not taxable as it is a capital relief on capital account. Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that the AO did formed an opinion while allowing the relief of Rs.1.37 crores waiver by the bank as not exigible to tax based on full and complete disclosure by the assessee company as set out above. The assessment has been re-opened u/s 147/148 of the Act within four years from the end of the assessment year which can no doubt be re-opened if it could be shown either that there was failure or omission on the part of the assessee company in full and complete disclosure before the AO to show that the opinion is formed by the AO based on the facts which were not correctly stated or placed by the assessee company before the ITA 6965/Mum/2013 23

AO and hence opinion formed by the AO on the appreciation of wrong facts presented by the assessee company gets vitiated and hence the Revenue becomes eligible to re-open u/s 147/148 of the Act the concluded assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act while no such averments has been made by the Revenue that incorrect or wrong facts were presented by the assessee company during the course of assessment proceedings which led to formation of an opinion by the AO which is a vitiated opinion. Rather, it is the contentions of the Revenue that the income has escaped assessment as the same is chargeable to tax u/s 41 of the Act as waiver money has become asssessee company’s own money and is a cessation of liability exigible to tax. Secondly, the assessment can be re-opened by the Revenue within four years from the end of the assessment if there is a new and tangible incriminating material coming into possession of the Revenue which has a live link and close nexus with the formation of a belief by the AO that income has escaped assessment. Again, we failed to understand which new and tangible incriminating material has come to the possession of the Revenue having live link and close nexus with the formation of a belief by the AO that the income has escaped assessment. The audit objection vide letter dated 24/09/2010 leading to re-opening u/s 147/148 of the Act of the concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act is based on different interpretation of law with respect to Section 41 of the Act arrived at by the audit team on the same set of facts and material which were also available before the AO while framing the original assessment orders dated 24.11.2008 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The Powers u/s 147/148 of the Act are powers to assess or re-assess the income , while there is no license granted to the authorities below to review their own faulty decisions or to make fresh roving or investigating enquiries to bring to tax income which could not be brought to tax in the original assessment proceedings. If that be allowed then there will be no end to litigation and the consequences will be disastrous. In case at any stage , if it found that the decision of the AO is faulty, the Revenue is not remedy less as the powers u/s ITA 6965/Mum/2013 24

263 of the Act are always with the Revenue whereby the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(“the CIT”) is empowered to set aside faulty decisions of the AO if the same are found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. This power is always available with the CIT u/s 263 of the Act to set aside faulty decisions of the AO , but certainly not the powers u/s 147/148 of the Act can be invoked to review all kind of faulty decisions of the AO. Thus, in our considered view, the reopening in the instant case is clearly based upon the change of opinion and based upon the audit objections dated 24-09-2010 which is based on different interpretation of law with respect to Section 41 of the Act of the material and facts which were already available on records before the AO while framing original assessment order dated 24.11.2008 u/s 143(3) of the Act and the same is not sustainable as the power u/s 147/148 is to assess or re-assess the income which has escaped assessment , but not to review the assessment’s based on the change of opinion by the AO . The audit team undertake the audit functions which are not judicial functions and the audit team certainly has powers to furnish the information to bring to the notice of the A.O. with respect to the income having escaped assessment, but they cannot come to the conclusions that income has escaped assessment based on a different interpretation of the law on the same set of facts and material as are available before the AO while framing original assessment and then make the recommendations to the AO for re-opening of the assessment based on their different interpretation of law on the same set of facts and material which was already with the AO as the audit team does not discharge judicial functions to oversee the functioning and working of the AO unless the course adopted by the AO is completely an impressible and impossible course which is against the provisions of law , while the A.O. being the quasi judicial authority also discharge the judicial functions involving interpretation of law and accordingly frame an opinion on the subject matter while framing assessment based on the interpretation of law on the facts and material before him. . In ITA 6965/Mum/2013 25

any case if any such recommendation is made by the audit team based on different interpretation of law on the same set of facts and material as were available before the AO, it requires independent satisfaction of the AO after due application of mind to come to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment. It clearly appears from the facts emerging from the records that the A.O. in the instant case has not applied any mind to come to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment before accepting the audit objections of the audit team to arrive at his independent satisfaction before re-opening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act the otherwise concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act , as per the facts emerging from the records placed before us . The AO has in an stereo typed mechanical manner merely accepted the recommendations of the audit team without any application of mind and proceeded to reopen the concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by recording the same reasons as were suggested by the audit team on a stereo typed mechanical manner based on audit objections and issuing notice u/s 148(1) of the Act, without recording his own independent satisfaction to re-open the otherwise concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979)119 ITR 996(SC) has held that whether it is the internal audit party of the Income-tax Department or an audit party of the Comptroller and Auditor General, they perform essentially administrative or executive functions and cannot be attributed the power of judicial supervision over the quasi-judicial acts of income-tax authorities. The Income-tax Act does not contemplate such power in any internal audit organisation of the Income-tax Department; it recognises power in those authorities only which are specifically authorised to exercise adjudicatory functions The Comptroller and Auditor-General's ( Duties, Powers & Condition) Act does not also envisage such a power. Neither statute supports the conclusion that an audit party

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 26

can pronounce on the law, and that such pronouncement amounts to "information" within the meaning of section 147(b) . In every case, the ITO must determine for himself what is the effect and consequence of the law mentioned in the audit note and whether, in consequence of the law which has now come to his notice, he can reasonably believe that income has escaped assessment. The basis of his belief must be the law of which he has now become aware. The opinion rendered by the audit party in regard to the law cannot, for the purpose of such belief, add to or colour the significance of such law. The true evaluation of the law in its bearing on the assessment must be made directly and solely by the ITO. In this case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society(supra), the ITO had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of sections 9 and 10. Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application of those provisions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. An error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material does not empower the ITO to reopen the assessment under section 147(b). Plainly, the statutory provision envisages that the ITO must have information in his possession, and then, in consequence of such information, he must have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The realisation that income has escaped assessment is covered by the words reason to believe, and it follows from the "information" received by the ITO. The information is not the realisation, the information gives birth to the realisation.Therefore, whether considered on the basis that the nature and scope of the functions of the internal audit organisation of the Income-tax Department are co-extensive with that of receipt audit or on the basis of the provisions specifically detailing its functions in the Internal Audit Manual, the opinion of an internal audit party of the Income-tax Department on a point of law cannot be regarded as "information" within the meaning of section 147(b) .

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 27

In this instant case based on the facts as emerging from the records, the AO has certainly applied his mind and formed an opinion while framing the original assessment orders dated 24.11.2008 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act that the relief /waiver on account of the balance amount of Rs.1.37 crores payable on the bank loan liability account as part of the amount payable on the date of NPA is not taxable as it is a capital relief on capital field being the principal amount which has never been taken into account while claiming deductions/expenditure while computing income under the Act which is one of the plausible and possible view adopted by the AO after due application of mind before forming such opinion on the subject. Nor there is any allegation by the Revenue that there is an failure or omission on the part of the assessee company in correctly presenting the facts before the AO which led to formation of an opinion which is vitiated by appreciation of the AO of the wrong material facts disclosed before him or concealment of the material facts by the assessee company which otherwise was essential to formation of an opinion to come to the conclusion which in the absence of the said material facts being disclosed got vitiated entitling the Revenue to re-open u/s 147/148 of the Act the concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. It clearly appears from the facts emerging from the records that the A.O. in the instant case has not applied any mind to come to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment before accepting the audit objections of the audit team to arrive at his independent satisfaction before re-opening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act the otherwise concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act , as per the facts emerging from the records placed before us . The AO has in an stereo typed mechanical manner merely accepted the recommendations of the audit team without any application of mind and proceeded to reopen the concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by recording the same reasons as were suggested by the audit team on a stereo typed mechanical manner based on audit objections and issuing notice u/s 148(1) of the Act, without recording his own independent satisfaction to re-open the otherwise

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 28

concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act.Thus, in our considered view and based on the factual matrix of the case as set out above , this act of an AO in reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act of the concluded assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act is not sustainable under the law and the reopening is held to be bad in law and is hereby quashed. In view of our above discussions and reasoning as set out above, the reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act of the otherwise concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act in the instant case of the assessee company is held to be bad in law and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. We did not find any infirmity in the well reasoned and detailed orders of the learned CIT(A) dated 20-09-2013 which we affirm.

While coming to the above conclusions ,we have duly considered the decision relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee company of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court Full Bench in the case [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Del) CIT v. Usha International Ltd. anddecision of the Ahmedabad Benches of the ITAT in the case of Sweta Organisors Private Limited v. ACIT (2008)118 TTJ 426(Ahd. Trib.).

Now, we will deal with the decisions relied upon by the ld DR during the course of hearing.The ld DR relied upon the following decisions

a) ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Arvee International v. ACIT, [2006] 101 ITD 495 (Mum). In the said case it was held by the ITAT that the AO is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator and he should not accept the contentions of the tax-payer in a summary manner without any enquiry as contemplated u/s 143(1) of the Act. This case is distinguishable as in the present case, the AO duly enquired about one time settlement entered into by the assessee company and asked for details which were duly submitted along with evidences by the assessee company as set out above with respect to one time

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 29

settlement arrived at by the assessee company and relief/waiver obtained by the assessee company. The AO formed an opinion and accepted the contentions of the assessee company after examining the claim of the assessee company . Thus, it could not be said that the claim of the assessee company was accepted in an summary manner as contemplated u/s 143(1) of the Act. Moreover 101 ITD 495 was dealing with powers of the CIT u/s 263 of the Act and we have also held that powers u/s 263 of the Act can be invoked to set aside the faulty orders of the AO , while in the instant case we are dealing with powers of the AO u/s 147/148 of the Act to assess or re-assess the income in contradistinction to the power of the AO to review its own faulty decisions which is not permissible within the ambit of Section 147/148 of the Act.

b) Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Ess Ess Kay Engineering Company Private Limited v. CIT (2002) 247 ITR 818 (SC) - In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with power of the AO to re-open assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act when there is a new and tangible material in possession of the AO leading to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment while in the instant case there was no fresh tangible material before the AO leading to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment rather it is the audit objection which is on interpretation of law with respect to Section 41 of the Act on the same set of facts and material which were before the AO, that the audit team came to a different conclusions, which is not permissible. Thus, this case is distinguishable vis-à-vis facts in the instant appeal.

) Hon’ble Madras High Court decision in the case of ALA Firm v. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 622(Mad.) – In this case , the Hon’ble Madras High Court has upheld that re-assessment is not possible based on change of opinion but if no opinion is formed in the original assessment proceedings, then re-assessment

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 30

is justified based on tangible material which may come to the notice of the AO after the conclusion of the original assessment, in the instant case under appeal we have based on the appreciation of facts concluded that the AO did form an opinion while framing original assessment orders u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.11.2008.Thus, this case relied upon by the ld DR is distinguishable as to the facts in the instant appeal as set out above.

d) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Revathy CP Equipment Limited v. DCIT (2000) 241 ITR 856(Mad.)-This case is also distinguishable as the tax- payer has not placed on records material facts before the AO in original assessment proceedings to come to the conclusion of allowability of claim of the tax-payer u/s. 80-I of the Act, while in the instant appeal all the facts relating to one time settlement entered into by the assessee company with the Bank were placed before the AO vide letter dated 11-11-2008 and also in audited financial statements, Directors Report and notes to accounts as set out above and the AO considered the same before allowing relief to the assessee company.However, with utmost respect , this decision is reversed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in Revathy CP Equipment Limited v. DCIT,(2010) 321 ITR 384(Mad.)

e) Som Dutt Builders Private Limited v. DCIT (2006)98 ITD 78(Kol). –In this case , the Kolkatta Tribunal has upheld the re-opening based on the objection raised by the Revenue audit as it permissible for revenue audit to point out factual errors and omissions in the assessment and the AO has not taken a view which was permissible view under law, but in the instant case the audit objection is based on the interpretation of law that money having being received in the course of business and on being granted relief has become the assessee company’s own money , the same should be treated as cessation of liability and income of the assessee company of the previous year u/s 41 of the Act, while the AO has taken one of the possible view that waiver

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 31

of capital relief by way of outstanding payable as per the books of accounts reflected in the bank statement being part of NPA account is on capital account not exigible to tax based on all the facts and material placed before the AO by the assessee company before arriving at an opinion by the AO that the said sum is not exigible to tax.

f) Kalyanji Mavji & Company v. CIT (1976)102 ITR 287(SC)-This case also , new and tangible information has come to the possession of the AO after completion of the assessment that the deduction was wrongly allowed and income has escaped assessment, while in the instant case under appeal no new tangible material has come into possession of the AO after the conclusion of the assessment indicating escapement of income, rather based on the same facts and material on record , the audit team has interpreted that waiver/relief of the bank loan under one time settlement with the Bank to have become the assessee company’s own money and is a cessation of liability chargeable to tax u/s 41 of the Act, while the AO has already on the basis of same facts and material before him formed an opinion that the said capital relief is not exigible to tax.The assessee comapny has also fully and truly disclosed all material facts before the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act with respect to one time settlement with the bank and relief /waiver obtained by the assessee company from the Bank.

g) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited (2007) 161 Taxman 316(SC) . In this case also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that the AO can re-open the concluded assessment if he has reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. Section 147 authorises and permits the AO to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Thus, again it could be seen that Hon’ble

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 32

Supreme Court held that the AO has power to assess or reassess the income and the AO does not have powers to review the assessment which was made by the AO based on opinion formed during the assessment proceedings. Thus, change of opinion is not permitted to enable the AO to review its own faulty decisions.

h) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. PVS Beedies Private Limited (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) . In this case, the audit team gave factual information that recognition of the trust has expired before 01-04-1973 and hence deduction u/s. 80G of the Act will not be available. This was factual information and not a case of information on a question of law and hence the re-opening was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court, while in the instant case the audit team is interpreting the law with respect to the provisions of Section 41 of the Act to conclude that the loan was taken by the assessee company in the course of business and there is a waiver of loan and hence the money has become assessee company’s own money and the same should be treated as income of the assessee company for the previous year u/s 41 of the Act.

i)Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979)119 ITR 996(SC) – It was held that by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case that whether it is the internal audit party of the Income-tax Department or an audit party of the Comptroller and Auditor General, they perform essentially administrative or executive functions and cannot be attributed the power of judicial supervision over the quasi-judicial acts of income-tax authorities. The Income-tax Act does not contemplate such power in any internal audit organisation of the Income-tax Department; it recognises power in those authorities only which are specifically authorised to exercise adjudicatory functions . The Comptroller and Auditor-General's ( Duties, Powers & Condition) Act does not also envisage such a power. Neither statute

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 33

supports the conclusion that an audit party can pronounce on the law, and that such pronouncement amounts to "information" within the meaning of section 147(b) . In every case, the ITO must determine for himself what is the effect and consequence of the law mentioned in the audit note and whether, in consequence of the law which has now come to his notice, he can reasonably believe that income has escaped assessment. The basis of his belief must be the law of which he has now become aware. The opinion rendered by the audit party in regard to the law cannot, for the purpose of such belief, add to or colour the significance of such law. The true evaluation of the law in its bearing on the assessment must be made directly and solely by the ITO. In this case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society(supra), the ITO had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of sections 9 and 10. Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application of those provisions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. An error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material does not empower the ITO to reopen the assessment under section 147(b). Plainly, the statutory provision envisages that the ITO must have information in his possession, and then, in consequence of such information, he must have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The realisation that income has escaped assessment is covered by the words reason to believe, and it follows from the "information" received by the ITO. The information is not the realisation, the information gives birth to the realisation.Therefore, whether considered on the basis that the nature and scope of the functions of the internal audit organisation of the Income-tax Department are co-extensive with that of receipt audit or on the basis of the provisions specifically detailing its functions in the Internal Audit Manual, the opinion of an internal audit party of the Income-tax Department on a point of law cannot be regarded as "information" within the meaning of section 147(b) .

ITA 6965/Mum/2013 34

Thus,in the case under instant appeal , the audit objection cannot be considered as tangible material for the AO to reopen u/s 147/148 of the Act concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act , unless the AO records his own satisfaction that income has escaped assessment . In the instant case there is no independent application of mind by the AO to the audit objection to come to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment. While in this instant case, the AO has after considering of the entire material and facts on records have formed an opinion that capital relief is not exigible to tax in the original assessment proceedings , and now it will be covered by change of opinion which is not permissible , as the audit team has also relied upon the same material to propound interpretation of law which is exceeding their jurisdiction. Thus, rather the case quoted by the ld DR supports in principle the proposition of law followed by us in this decision.

j) Hon’ble Madras High Court CIT v. First Leasing Company of India Limited (2001) 241 ITR 248(Mad.)- In this case the audit party has raised objection on factual issue and there is no audit opinion based on interpretation of law and hence the Hon’ble Madras High Court upheld the re-opening u/s 147/148 of the Act . In-fact this case supports in principle the proposition of law followed by us in this decision.

This disposes of ground no 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue in the instant appeal. We order accordingly.

Since, we have annulled and quashed the re-opening of the otherwise concluded assessment by affirming the orders of the learned CIT(A) as set out and indicated above, the issue on merits has become academic and infructuous and we refrain from deciding the issue on merits and the ITA 6965/Mum/2013 35

question is kept open. This disposes of the ground no 4 raised by the Revenue. We order accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd May , 2016. आदेश क" घोषणा खुले "यायालय म" "दनांकः 23-05-2016 को क" गई । sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated 23-05-2016 [ व."न.स./ R.K. R.K. R.K., Ex. Sr. PS R.K.

आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 2. ""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned, Mumbai 4. आयकर आयु"त / CIT- Concerned, Mumbai "वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai “E” Bench 5. 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"या"पत ""त //// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.