Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. KANT
Date of Hearing : 18-8-2015 Date of Order : 01-10-2015 ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU : JM
This appeal by the Assesse is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut dated 18.3.2013 passed u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act pertaining to assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds:- 1. That the impugned order as passed by the Id. CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is arbitrary, unjust & illegal on various factual and legal grounds including the followings:-
(a) The asstt. Order dated 15.11.2010 as passed by the AO. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (b) The Id. CIT had no jurisdiction to invoke section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (c) The Id. AO. has passed the order dt. 15.11.2010 u/s 143(3) after proper application of mind. (d) Various Observations and directions made by the Id. CIT in his section 263 order are either incorrect or are untenable in law and various case laws relied upon by the Id. CIT are not applicable to the appellant's case, being distinguishable on facts and the facts on records have not been considered in the right perspective thereof.
That, without prejudice to ground nO.1 above the various directions of Id. CIT to AO vide Para Nos.8 to 10 are also illegal, unjust and untenable in law.
That without prejudice to above grounds, the Id. CIT has grossly erred in law by making additions of Rs. 38,48,050/- to the income of the appellant holding that the difference between the amount as per arbitrations award and the amount declared by the appellant is the concealed income of the appellant and the finding of the Id. CIT in Para 7 page 7 "that the appellant has shown in its books of account the sum of RS.34,48,050/- as receivable from M/s Charms India (P) Ltd." is factually incorrect and the action of Id. CIT is perverse and has caused gross & great injustice to the appellant and that the proper opportunity of being heard on the issues has not been allowed and the order under appeal cannot be termed as a speaking order and is based on incomplete and inadequate appreciation of facts of the case and the various case laws relied upon by the Id. CIT are not applicable to the appellant's case being distinguishable on facts.
With prejudice to above, the Id. CIT has erred in making the addition of RS.38,48,050/-, and in any case, if the Ld. CIT was not convinced with the submissions of the appellant, the issue ought to have been sent back to the file of the Id. AO. for reconsideration and passing the order a fresh.
5. That the impugned order of the CIT u/s 263 deserves to be cancelled l annulled.
6. The appellant craves leave to add, delete and l or modify any grounds of appeal
2. The facts relating to the issue in dispute are that the assessee company filed its return declaring net income at Rs. 2,55,46,190/- on 21.8.2008 which was processed u/s. 143(1) on the returned income. The case has been selected to be completed under scrutiny through Selective scrutiny and accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) dated 22.9.2009 was issued. Thereafter various notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the aforesaid notices Authorised Representative of the assessee attended the hearing from time to time and the case was discussed with him. Books of accounts, bills / vouchers etc. produced which were examined by the AO. After considering all the facts, details submitted by the assessee and after examination of books / documents and after discussion of the various issue, the assessment was completed on returned income vide order 15.11.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
3. Ld. CIT, Meerut examined the record and found that the assessment was completed without proper enquiry on the following counts:- a) The case was selected for scrutiny since the assessee had shown Rs.2.50 crores as ‘any other income' while NIL sales, gross receipts of business were shown. This aspect needed to be investigated. The assesseement records show that the assessment has been completed on returned income in a casual manner even without asking for discrepancies and variations on record. The case was not enquired properly, at all. b) There is a photocopy of a ward by sole arbitrartor dated 1.10.2007 between the assessee as claimant and Mls Charms India Pvt. Ltd. as respondent. The assessee had claimed a sum of Rs.4,12,00,11,500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum which is evident from the award dated 1.10.2007. The AO has not inquired at all about the taxability of the same. c) Further the arbitrator vide award dated 1.10.2007 has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,88,48,050/- in favor of the claimant out of which the assessee has merely shown the sum of Rs. 2.50 crores as the income from the same leaving sum of Rs.2,88,48,050 - Rs.2,50,00,000 = Rs.38,48,050/-. The AO has totally failed to enquire and tax the remaining sum of Rs.38,48,050/- and there is nothing on record as to how the sum awarded has not been returned by the assessee which did not have any justification and entire amount was taxable as such in accordance with the provisions of law. d) Further, the photocopy of the details of sundry creditors for goods of Mls. Charms India Pvt. Ltd. show the assessee 4 sundry creditor for goods for Rs.38,48,050/- whereas the AO has accepted the version of assessee (without any inquiry) that no business activity was all carried out by the assessee. e) Mls. Charms India Pvt. Ltd. in Schedule-I has claimed under the head direct construction cost the sum of Rs.2,88,48,050/- as other project expenses of the year ending 31.3.2008 which is rather the schedule of construction and P&L Alc and, hence, undoubtedIy claimed as direct expense by Mls. Charms India Pvt. Ltd. As against the same the assesse has shown the receipts of merely 2.50 crores which has been accepted by the AO without inquiring into the same. f) The AO has also not inquired if the agreement between the two concerns and the MOU was a collusive one or the arrangement entered into by the parties with some motive and has also not gone into and inquired if it had legal contractual value and/ or was binding. Out of sum received on arbitration a sum ofRs.1.92 crores has been given to Adesh Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in which all the partners of the assessee firm are the directors. The AO has not looked into this aspect as well.
4. In view of above, Ld. CIT is of the view that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He also held that in the case of M/s. Malabar Industries, the Hon'ble Apex court has held that incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law, will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous; order passed by the AO is without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The Ld. CIT has passed the impugned order u/s. 263 dated 18.3.2013 directing the AO to make addition of Rs. 38,48.050/- and partly set aside the 5 assessment order with the direction to frame a fresh assessment order after examining the issues discussed in the order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act.
Against the order of the Ld. CIT dated 18.3.2013 passed u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, the assessee appealed before the Tribunal.
Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the original assessment order dated 15.11.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act in the case of the assessee as well as the documentary evidence filed by him in the shape of Synopsis and Paper Book. 6.1 On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT dated 18.3.2013 passed under Section 263 of the I.T. Act.
Having carefully examined the entire evidences available on the record in the light of the oral submissions of the parties, with reference to the provisions of law and after giving anxious thought, in the light of the plain words used in section 263 of the Act. We draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and other relevant cases, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for revising the assessment order. The reasons for our above conclusion are that the twin conditions, viz., the assessment order should be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue do not co-exist in this case. The assessee had filed return of income for the year under consideration and had disclosed the entire requisite details alongwith return of income during the year under consideration. During the assessment proceedings, the ld. AO examined all the relevant evidences produced before him, either alongwith the return or during the assessment proceedings, and has accepted the gift as genuine. The AO called for the entire details on the issue in dispute. 6 7.1 We find that the revisional power conferred on the Commissioner under this section is of wide amplitude. It enables the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act. The revisional power under section 263 cannot be exercised in respect of a matter which falls within the power to assess escaped income under section 147 of the Act. The revisional power is a quasi-judicial one hedged with limitation and has to be exercised subject to the same and within its scope and ambit. So far as calling for the records and examining them is concerned, undoubtedly, it is an administrative act but on examination “to consider” or in other words, to form an opinion that particular order is erroneous is so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, is a quasi-judicial act because on this consideration or opinion the whole machinery of re-examination and reconsideration of an order of assessment, which has already been concluded and controversy which has been set at rest, is again set in motion. It is an important decision and the same cannot be based upon the whims and the fancies or the caprice of the revising authority. There must be material(s) available from the records called for by the Commissioner. The Commissioner must give reasons for passing an order. He is bound by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court. The Commissioner must come to a firm conclusion on the point that error in the order has resulted in prejudice to the interests of the Revenue. He has to apply his mind for coming to a firm conclusion which should be based on proper material and he must mention that material in his order. The Commissioner may under this section pass such an order as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or canceling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment, or any other order to the detriment of the assessee. But a mistake or omission in the assessment order would not justify the setting aside of the whole order. 7.2 From the plain reading of the above provision it is manifestly clear that an order can be revised if and only if the twin conditions, viz., one that the order is erroneous and two – that to that extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue co-exist. Or in other words, an order can be revised if it is both erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. An order, which is only erroneous but not prejudicial, cannot be revised. Likewise an order, which is only prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue but not erroneous, cannot be revised. To put it in, still simpler words, it is mandatory for the Commissioner to revise an order that both the above conditions must “co-exist”. An order which is not “erroneous” cannot be revised even if it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, and the vice-versa. 7.3 The subject of “revision U/s 263” has been vastly examined and analysed by various Courts including that of Hon’ble Apex Court. The revisional power conferred on the Commissioner vide S. 263 is of vide amplitude. It enables the Commissioner to call for and examine the records of any proceeding under the Act. It empowers the Commissioner to make or cause to be made such an enquiry as he deems necessary in order to find out if any order passed by Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The only limitation on his powers is that he must have some material(s) which would enable him to form a prima- facie opinion that the order passed by the Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Once he comes to the above conclusions on the basis of the 8 ‘material’ that the order of the A.O. is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests if the Revenue, the Commissioner is empowered to pass an order as the circumstances of the case may warrant. He may pass an order enhancing the assessment or he may modify the assessment. He is also empowered to cancel the assessment and direct to frame a fresh assessment. He is empowered to take recourse to any of the three courses indicated in S.
So, it is clear that the Commissioner does not have unfettered and unchequred discretion to revise an order. The Commissioner is required to exercise revisional power within the bounds of the law and has to satisfy the need of fairness in administrative action and fair- play with due respect to the principle of audi alteram partem as envisaged in the Constitution of India as well in section 263. An order can be treated as “erroneous” if it was passed in utter ignorance or in violation of any law; or passed without taking into consideration all the relevant facts or by taking into consideration irrelevant facts. The “prejudice” that is contemplated under S. 263 is the prejudice to the Income Tax administration as a whole. The revision has to be done for the purpose of setting right distortions and prejudices caused to the Revenue in the above context. The fundamental principles which emerge from the several cases regarding the powers of the Commissioner under section 263 may be summarized below:- (i) The Commissioner must record satisfaction that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Both the conditions must be ful- filled. (ii) Section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer and it is only when an order is erroneous, that the section will be attracted. (iii) An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will suffice for the requirement of order being erroneous. (iv) If the order is passed without application of mind, such order will fall under the category of erroneous order. (v) Every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and if the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible under law or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable under law. (vi) If while making the assessment, the Assessing Officer examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income, the Commissioner, while exercising his power under section 263, is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the Assessing Officer. (vii) The Assessing Officer exercise quasi- judicial power vested in him and if he exercise such power in accordance with law and arrives at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion.
(viii) the Commissioner , before exercising his jurisdiction under section 263, must have material on record to arrive at a satisfaction. (ix) If the Assessing Officer has made enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings on the relevant issues and the assessee has given detailed explanation by a letter in writing and the Assessing Officer allowed the claim on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. 7.4 Now reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, it is found that the AO has made proper enquiries during the assessment proceedings and after examining the proofs so filed by the assessee before him, has made disallowance on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. 7.5 The finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given in the celebrated decision of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. (supra) are relevant for ready reference and so these are being extracted herein below : “A bare reading of section 263 of the income-tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that the prerequisite for 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 11 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 section 263(1) of the Act. The provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase “prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue” is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. 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 Revenue. 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 phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one 12 of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” 7.6 The above ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision supports our finding given in this case. The Hon’ble Kolkata Bench has further clarified and defined as to what does the expressions “lack of enquiry by AO” means while deciding the case of Sigma Search Lights Ltd. vs. ITO, 82 ITTJ 956 (ITAT Kolkata). The Hon’ble Bench has observed as under :- “Revision – Erroneous and prejudicial order – Lack of enquiry by AO –An order may be brief or cryptic but if has been passed after conducting proper enquiries into the facts stated in the return, such an order cannot be held erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for that reason alone – CIT setting aside assessment under s. 263 and ordering do novo assessment on grounds of low GP rate and higher expenses towards commission – No finding by CIT that expenses were bogus and similar expenses to same parties allowed in earlier as well as subsequent assessment years – Record showing that AO made detailed enquiry before completing the assessment – condition precedent for invoking revisional jurisdiction not present – Revisional order quashed.”
7.7. We find that in the present case the Assessee is a Firm engaged in construction. Return was filed on 21/08/2008 declaring income of RS.2,55,46,190/- and assessment was completed on the' returned income of RS.2,55,46,190/- vide assessment order dated 15/11/2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of I. T. Act. Subsequently, show cause notice uls 263 dated 12/02/2013 was issued by the Ld. CIT. Vide impugned order uls 263 dated 18/03/2013, the Ld. CIT directed the AO to make addition of Rs, 38,48,050/- and partly set aside the assessment order with the direction to frame a fresh assessment order after examining the issues discussed in the order u/s 263. In pursuance to order uls 263, AO passed assessment order dated 28/02/2014 uls 263/143(3), addition of RS.38,48,050/- has been made by the AO as directed by the Ld. CIT vide impugned order uls 263. 7.8 We note that the Ld. CIT in the impugned order uls 263 vide para 7 at pages 6-7 has observed as under: "As regards the points on the basis of which the proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were taken, the assessee has shown an income of RS.2.5 crores as ‘any other income' while there were Nil sales, gross receipts of business. As per the records, the assessee had claimed a sum of Rs. 12, 11,5001- along with interest at 18% per annum from Mls Charms India Pvt. Ltd. Vide an Award by sole arbitrator dated 1.10.2007, the assessee was awarded a sum of Rs.2,88,48,050/-. Vide notice under section 263 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 the assessee was asked as to why the entire sum of Rs.4,12, 11,500/- along with interest at 18% be not taken as income of the assessee on the basis of assessee's claim. It was argued by the Id. Counsel that the assessee has actually received only Rs. 2.5 crores out of the award amount of 14 Rs. 2,88,48,050/- and the balance amount of Rs. 38,48,000/- not received by the assessee was foregone and settled before due date of filing return. It was contented that the adjustment was made in terms of AS-4 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India which provides for the adjustment towards the events occurring after the date of balance sheet. The assessee, however, could not furnish any evidence or material if its claim from Charms India Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 4.12 crores seized to exist or if no legal claim for the same remained for which no explanation was offered. On the other hand, the assessee has shown in its books the sum of Rs.38,48,050/- as receivable from Mls Charms India Pvt Ltd. Further, the details of sundry creditors for goods of Mls Charms India Pvt. Ltd. shows the assessee as sundry credit for good for Rs. 38,48,050/-. Moreover, Mls Charms India Pvt. Ltd. in Schedule-I has claimed under the head direct construction cost the sum of Rs.2,88,48,050/- as other project expenses of the year ending 31.3.2008 which is rather the schedule of construction and P&L Alc and, hence, undoubtedly claimed as direct expense by Mls Charms India Pvt. Ltd. As against the same the assessee has shown the receipts of merely 2.50 crores which has been accepted by the AO without inquiring into the same. In view of above the difference of RS.38,48,050/- between the Award and receipts shown by the assessee is added to its income." 7.9 We also find from the observations of the Ld. CIT in the impugned order that receipts of merely RS.2.50 crores from Mls Charms India Pvt. Ltd. has been accepted by the AO without inquiring into the same is factually incorrect as explained below: a) During the course of assessment proceedings, AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of I.T. Act dated 11/08/2010 to Mls Charms India Pvt. Ltd. who in response to the same filing letter dated 28/08/2010, copy placed at pages 25-26 of the paper book alongwith the following annexures: (i) List of Directors with their addresses, copy placed at page 27. (ii)List of shareholders with their addresses, copy placed at page 28. (iii) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 16/1/2006 between M/s Charms India Pvt. Ltd. and the Appellant, copy placed at pages 30-35. In such MOU, Mls Charms India Pvt. Ltd. approached the Appellant for development of a housing project on its land situated in Village Kanawani Mohidinpur, Tehsil Dadri, District, Gautam Budh Nagar. iv) Arbitration award of Shri B.B.L Hajelay (Retd. District Judge) dated 01/10/2007, copy placed at pages 36-43 in which Mls Charms India Pvt. Ltd. was directed to pay compensation/award of Rs.2,88,48,0501- to the Appellant for breach of MOU. (v) Copy of ITR and computation of income of Mls Charms India Pvt. Ltd. (vi) Copy of audited balance sheet, P&L Alc of Mls Charms India Pvt. Ltd. for the year under consideration placed at pages 49-65 from which it is evident that 'other project expenses' of Rs.2,88,48,050/- (which included Rs.2,50,00,000 paid as compensation to the Appellant on account of arbitration award) were debited to P&L Alc (refer to page 58) and Rs.38,48,050/- was shown payable to the Appellant under the head 'details of sundry creditors for goods' (refer to page 64).
(vii) Copy of Alc of the Appellant in the books of the Mls Charms India Pvt. Ltd. for the subsequent assessment year 2009-10 placed at page 29 from which it is evident that compensation of Rs.38,48,0501- payable to the Appellant in the assessment year 2008-09 was reversed in the subsequent assessment year 2009-10. 7.10 We also observed from the copy of Alc of the Appellant in the books of Mls Charms India Pvt. Ltd. for the year under consideration as filed by such party before the AO in response to notice u/s 133(6) dated 11/08/2010, copy attached as Annexure-I that the Appellant received only RS.2,50,00,000/- out of Rs2,88,48,050/- as compensation on account of arbitration award during the year under consideration 7.11 We also find that the AO's notice u/s 133(6) dated 04/10/2010 issued to M/s Charms India Pvt. Ltd. during the course of assessment proceedings says that :- "Vide this office letter dated 11-08-2010 you were asked to furnish the details in connection with Mls Singhal Construction Co. D-9, Shastri Nagar, Meerut. The requisite details were furnished by you vide your office letter dated 28/08/2010 except one information which is mentioned at S. No. 8 of this office letter dated 11/08/2010 i.e. details of ownership property mentioned in MOU dated 16/01/2006". 7.12 The details of ownership of property is duly mentioned in the first page of MOU at Sr.No.1 in which it is mentioned that “the owners (i.e. M/s Charm India Pvt. Ltd.) seized and possessed of or otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to the pieces or parcels of land situated at Khasra No. 519M & 537, Village Kanwani, Mohiduddinpur, Tehsil Dadri, Dist. Ghaziabad measuring 7510 sq. mtrs."
7.13 In view of the above, it is evident that the assessment order was passed by the AO after making all possible enquires. In other words, assessment order dated 15/11/2010 u/s 143(3) had been passed by the AO after proper application of mind as is also evident from such assessment order itself, relevant portion of which is reproduced below: "In response to the aforesaid notices, Sh. R.M. Agarwal, CA., counsel of the assessee attended the hearing from time to time and the case was discussed with him. Books of accounts bills/vouchers etc. produced which were examined on test check basis. Considering all the facts, detailed submitted by the assessee and after examination of account books/documents and after discussion of the various issues, the assessment is completed on returned income." 7.14 In our considered opinion, the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of I.T. Act cannot be exercised even where enquiry as made by the AO is considered as inadequate enquiry in the opinion of the Ld. CIT. 7.15 In view of above, the Assessee received only RS.2,50,00,000l- towards compensation from M/s Charm India Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration and as the Appellant was following cash system of accounting, as is apparent from clause (11a) of tax audit report i.e. Form 3CD copy placed at pages 4-14 {relevant page 4} of the paper book, the Appellant rightly accounted for the actual amount of receipt of compensation on receipt basis and therefore, there was no justification on the part of the Id. CIT to make addition of RS.38,48,050/- to the income of the Assessee on accrual basis.
7.16 Keeping in view of the above, the impugned order u/s 263 is also illegal as the Ld. CIT has not conducted any independent enquiry/verification before making addition of Rs.38,48,050/- on account of compensation. In this regard, we draw our support from the ITAT Gauhati Bench judgment in the case of ACIT vs. Manas Salt Iodisation Industries (P) Ltd. reported in 116 DTR(Gau)(Trib) 348, in which the Hon'ble ITAT had endorsed the view taken in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs. Jt CIT (Mumbai ITAT) 3 SOT 44 in which at internal page 352, it was held as under:
The CIT by deciding the fate of the issues himself has pre-empted the assessee company in agitating the matter before the various authorities right from the assessment onwards in a systematic and consistent manner. Therefore, that part of the conclusion of the revision order is not sustainable
In view of the foregoing observations and the precedents, we are of the considered opinion that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue so as to attract the proceedings u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, we cancel the revisional order passed u/s. 263 and restore the assessment order in question.