M/s HEG Ltd., v. The ACIT, 1(1),

ITA 116/IND/2007 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 11622714 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AAACH6184K
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 116/IND/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant M/s HEG Ltd.,
Respondent The ACIT, 1(1),
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 24-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 20-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 20-04-2010
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 05-02-2007
Judgment Text
PAGE 1 OF 12 - I.T.A.NO. 116/IND/2008 H.E.G. MANDIDEEP IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH : INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAN NO. : AAACH 6184K I.T.A.NO.116/IND/2007 A.Y. : 1998-99 H.E.G.LIMITED ACIT MANDIDEEP VS 1(1) DISTRICT RAISEN BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. C. MEHTA AND SHRI HITESH CHIMNANI CAS RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K.SINGH CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.05.2010 O R D E R PER V.K. GUPTA A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I BHOPAL DATED 21.12.2006 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1998-99. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS :- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE APPELLANTS GROUND THAT THE INITIATIO N OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS PAGE 2 OF 12 - I.T.A.NO. 116/IND/2008 H.E.G. MANDIDEEP BASED ON A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. THE LD. CIT(A) A LSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 W ERE INITIATED WITHOUT THERE BEING REASON TO BELIEVE T HAT THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT T O DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR AS SESSMENT. 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED OR IGINAL RETURN ON 30.11.1998 WHEREIN REGULAR INCOME AFTER SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WAS NIL AND THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION U/S 80IA/80HHC. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INC OME U/S 115JA AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA IN RESPECT OF PR OFITS OF POWER DIVISION AT DURG AND TAWA AT RS. 1 62 34 756/- AND U/S 80HHC AT RS. 10 41 12 728/- AND WORKED OUT THE BOOK PROFIT AT RS . 5 85 73 009/-. THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JA WAS DECLARED AT RS. 1 75 71 9 30/- BEING 30 % OF SUCH BOOK PROFIT. THE A.O. COMPLETED ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) ON 27.3.2001 WHEREIN HE WORKED OUT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AT RS. 43 50 600/-. CONSEQUENTLY BOOK PROFIT WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 15 83 35 227/- AND BOOK PROFIT U/S 115J WAS ARR IVED AT RS. 4 75 00 568/-. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 21.10.2002 COMPUTED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AT RS. 10 36 65 715/- AND T HE A.O. GAVE EFFECT TO SUCH APPELLATE ORDER ON 28.11.2002 WHEREIN THE A .O. DETERMINED THE PAGE 3 OF 12 - I.T.A.NO. 116/IND/2008 H.E.G. MANDIDEEP BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JA AT RS. 1 76 06 034/-. THEREA FTER IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT HAD DEBITED PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 70 02 883/- WHICH WERE TO BE ADDED TO COMPUTE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JA. HENCE C ASE WAS REOPENED AND A NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 28.2.2002. THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 WAS COM PLETED ON 13 TH MARCH 2003 WHEREIN AFTER ADDING SUCH PROVISION FO R DOUBTFUL DEBTS THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JA WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 1 98 06 8 98/-. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST S UCH ACTION OF A.O. WHO DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF CIT(A). THIS CASE WAS AGAIN REOPENED ON 11.8.2004 FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT EXCESS DEDUCTION U/S 80IA HAD BEEN ALL OWED IN COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JA. IN THE COURSE OF SUCH RE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. DISALLOWED 80IA DEDUCTION RE DUCED THE QUANTUM OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80HHC TO NIL IN VIEW O F THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE IPCA LABORATORIES AS REPORTED IN 266 ITR 521 AND ALSO MADE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DEF ERMENT OF SALES TAX U/S 43B. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) WHO REVERSED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 43B AND U/S 80IA VIDE ORDER DATED 21.12 .2006. THE TRIBUNAL PAGE 4 OF 12 - I.T.A.NO. 116/IND/2008 H.E.G. MANDIDEEP ALSO CONFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A). IN S UCH APPELLATE ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THERE WAS NO POSITIVE PROF IT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EN TITLED TO ANY DEDUCTION THEREOF IN COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT FOR THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE THIS DECISION ON MERIT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CHALLENGED THE VALI DITY OF REOPENING FOR THE REASON THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 CO ULD NOT BE INITIATED MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLA IM THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS FOR THIS PROPO SITION. APART FROM THIS THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO A PPLICATION OF MIND WHILE ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 147 AS THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE VAGUE AMBIGUOUS AND WERE IN THE NATURE OF ACTION TO MAKE FISHING/ROVING ENQUIRIES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT IT WAS A CASE OF REOPENING BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 147 AND THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR AS SESSMENT. HENCE FOR THIS REASON ALSO THE REOPENING WAS NOT VALID. THE ASSES SEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED 268 ITR 332 FOR THE PROPOSITION THA T WHERE THE A.O. IN THE REASONS RECORDED HAD NOT MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY AL L MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY PAGE 5 OF 12 - I.T.A.NO. 116/IND/2008 H.E.G. MANDIDEEP FOR ASSESSMENT OF THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR SUCH REOPEN ING COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF REOPENING OF S UCH ASSESSMENT CONCURRING WITH THE VIEWS OF THE A.O. I.E. WHERE TH E REOPENING WAS SOUGHT IN CONSEQUENCE OF INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESS ION OR OTHERWISE LEADING TO A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN ESCAPEMENT AS GATHERED FROM CONCRETE MATERIAL NOTICED BY HIM SUBS EQUENTLY AND IN THE PRESENT CASE THE A.O. WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT APPELLANT W AS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AND WHICH WAS ALSO CLAIMED IN AS SESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99 I.E.THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 5. THE LD. CIT DR SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF DEVEL OPMENT IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM F OR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT. HENCE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS REOPENED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS FOUND IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE MATERIAL FACTS TRULY AND FULLY. H ENCE ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED MERELY FOR THIS REASON. THEREAFTER THE LD CIT DR CONTENDED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/ S 143(3) THE CLAIM U/S 80IA HAD BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPLICATION PAGE 6 OF 12 - I.T.A.NO. 116/IND/2008 H.E.G. MANDIDEEP OF MIND. HENCE REOPENING WAS VALIDLY DONE. THE LD. CIT DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F IPCA LABORATORIES AS REPORTED IN 266 ITR 521 CAME TO THE NOTICE OF A. O. AND ON THAT BASIS THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED U/S 80HHC AND THEREFORE HAVING REGARD TO THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 T HE SAID ACTION OF THE A.O. WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT DR FURTHER CO NTENDED THAT IN THE CASE OF VIPIN CHANDRA AS REPORTED IN 255 ITR 220 T HE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAD QUASHED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THE A.OS ACTION WAS IN THE REALM OF MAKING R OVING ENQUIRIES WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ACTION OF THE A.O. WAS COMPLETELY SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF IPCA LABORATORIES (SUPRA). HENCE THE SAME WAS LIAB LE TO BE SUSTAINED. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES C HANGE OF OPINION COULD ALSO BE A VALID REASON FOR REOPENING THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION THE LD. CIT DR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- (I) 102 ITR 287 ( S. C.) (II) 247 ITR 818 ( S. C. ) (III) 224 ITR 362 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDED THAT IT WAS A CASE OF REOPENING OF ORIGIN AL ASSESSMENT PAGE 7 OF 12 - I.T.A.NO. 116/IND/2008 H.E.G. MANDIDEEP COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS HENCE AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 147 THERE MUST HAVE BEEN FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULLY ALL MATERI AL FACTS. AS REGARDS TO THE DISCLOSURE OF ALL THE FACTS THE LEARNED COUNSEL RE FERRED TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AUDIT REPORT FILED IN RESPEC T OF CLAIM U/S 80HHC AND 80IA. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE QUERIES MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RE FERRED TO COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JA WHEREIN THE ISSUE FOR QUA NTUM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WHICH COULD BE REDUCED FROM THE BOOK PROFIT WAS DULY DISCUSSED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC HAD ALSO BEEN EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) HENCE THIS ISSUE HAD MERGED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND THEREFORE THE A.O. HAD NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE ADDITION THEREOF I N THE COURSE OF SECOND RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION I.E. REOPEN ON THE SAME SET OF FA CTS HENCE NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. FOR THIS PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS. 8. THE LD. CIT DR IN THE REJOINDER SUBMITTED THAT ON M ERITS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL HENCE THE PAGE 8 OF 12 - I.T.A.NO. 116/IND/2008 H.E.G. MANDIDEEP A.O.S ACTION WAS JUSTIFIED FOR THIS REASON ALSO. T HE LD. CIT DR FURTHER PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 9. THIS CASE WAS ACCORDINGLY HEARD. HOWEVER ON PERU SAL OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER SUBSEQUENTLY IT EMERGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A PRELIMINARY GROUND THAT IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THERE WAS NO FINDING/OBSERVATION THAT THERE WAS A F AILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS TRULY A ND FULLY. HENCE THE ACTION OF THE A.O. WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED MERELY FOR THI S REASON. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH PROPOSITION THE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED ON THE DE CISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LI MITED REPORTED IN 268 ITR 32 AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT GIVEN ANY FIN DING ON THIS ASPECT. HENCE THIS CASE WAS RELEASED FOR CLARIFICATION ON THIS ASPECT AND ALSO TO OBTAIN THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ON 17.12.2003 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE :- WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3)/250/14 7 THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JA HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT AFTER ALL OWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA BEING PROFIT OF POWER DIVISION OF DURG AND TAWA AMOUNTING TO RS. 8 90 02 499/- AND RS. 7 34 32 257/- RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE POWER GENERATED BY THE ABOVE TWO POWER PLANTS WERE PAGE 9 OF 12 - I.T.A.NO. 116/IND/2008 H.E.G. MANDIDEEP UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AND NO PROFIT WAS A CTUALLY EARNED. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FO R ANY DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AND BY ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA A MISTAKE HAS BEEN OCCURRED. 10. THE LD. CIT DRS VIEW WAS SOUGHT ON THIS ASPECT T O WHICH HE PREFERRED TO RELY ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE L EARNED COUNSEL ON THE OTHER HAND PREFERRED TO RELY ON THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. 12. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 7.23. THE APPELLANTS OBJECTIONS TO THE REOPENIGN OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS DISCUSSED IN P ARA 8 ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A.O. RELIE D MAINLY ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF T. S. SANTHANAM VS. ETO REPORTED IN 87 ITR 582 BESIDES RELYING ON OTHER CASES REPORTED IN 6ITR 414 ( P.C.) 85 ITR 156 9( S.C.) WHEREIN IT WA S HELD THAT IF IT IS A CASE WHERE THE REOPENING IS SO UGHT PAGE 10 OF 12 - I.T.A.NO. 116/IND/2008 H.E.G. MANDIDEEP IN CONSEQUENCE OF INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION OR EVEN OTHERWISE WHICH LEADS TO A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN ESCAPEMENT AND IF THAT INFORMATION IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF A CHANGE IN HIS MOOD BUT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONCRETE MATERIAL NOTIC ED BY HIM THEN THE A.O. CAN REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 7.24. I HAVE PERUSED THE CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS PUT FORWARD BY THE LD. A.R. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER AS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONGWITH HISTORY OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. FROM THE FACTS IT WILL BE SEEN THAT IN THE ASSESSM ENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 THE A.O. HAD FOR THE FIRST TIME DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF PROFIT OF CAPTIVE OF POWER DIVISIONS O F THE APPELLANT U/S 80-IA WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOM E UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS AS WELL AS WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JA. IT IS A FACT THAT IN THE EARLIER SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS THIS ISSUE WAS NO T EXAMINED. THUS THE POSITION WAS ACCEPTED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENTS WITHOUT ANY SCRUTINY OR ANALYSI S PAGE 11 OF 12 - I.T.A.NO. 116/IND/2008 H.E.G. MANDIDEEP OF THE FACTS OF THE MATTER. THE A.O. WHILE THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTIONS SUPPOSEDLY CLAIMED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ALSO. I THEREFORE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT REOPENING WAS UNJUSTIFIED AND HOLD THAT REOPENING WAS RIGHTLY RESORTED TO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SCOPE OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS THE A.O. PRIMA FACIE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE APPELLANT HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. I THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE A.O. FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AS PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN LEGALLY INITIATED. 13. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE REASONS AS REPRODUCED HERE INBEFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE SAID REASO NS ABOUT THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSURE TRULY AND FULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT OF IMPUGNED ASSESS MENT ORDER. HENCE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN LIVER LIMITED (SUPRA) WHICH HAS NOW BECO ME A SETTLED JUDICIAL PRINCIPLE AS MAJORITY OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS HAVE ALSO HELD SO THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE LIABLE TO BE Q UASHED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. ONCE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASHED FOR THIS PAGE 12 OF 12 - I.T.A.NO. 116/IND/2008 H.E.G. MANDIDEEP REASON ONLY WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO EXP RESS ANY OPINION ON THE VARIOUS OTHER CONTENTIONS RAISED BY BOTH THE SIDES. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO PASSED IS QUASHED. 14. GROUND NO.3 IS OF CONSEQUENTIAL AND NO DECISION IS REQUIRED THEREON. 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH MAY 2010. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (V. K. GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 24 TH MAY 2010. CPU* 1011D125