M/S. BALAJI INFRASTRUCTURAL PVT. LTD., Neemuch v. THE CIT, Ujjain

ITA 267/IND/2015 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 26722714 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AAGCS2263J
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 267/IND/2015
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant M/S. BALAJI INFRASTRUCTURAL PVT. LTD., Neemuch
Respondent THE CIT, Ujjain
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 28-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 06-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 06-09-2016
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 21-04-2015
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/S.SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED LIMITED NEEMUCH PAN: AAGCS2263J VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX UJJAIN APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI S.S.DESHPANDE C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAJEEV VARSHANEY CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 06.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28.09.2016 O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX UJJAIN [HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS I.T.A. NOS. 267/IND/2015 & 318/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2010-11 AND 2011-12 I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 2 OF 25 THE CIT] DATED 31.03.2015 AND 14.03.2016 PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12. 2. FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS :- I.T.A.NOS. 267/IND/2015 AND 318/IND/2016 A.YS. 201 0- 11 & 2011-12: 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT U/S 263 IS ILLE GAL AND BAD IN LAW AND HENCE BE SET ASIDE. 2. THE LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 263 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. 2.1 IT WAS PROVED BEFORE THE LD. CIT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEVELOPED THE INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITI ES ON THE BASIS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND IS NOT MERELY A CONTRACTOR. THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT IS BASED ON CONJECTURES AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS. 3. IT WAS PROVED BEFORE THE LD. CIT THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED AFTER DUE SCRUTINY OF THE I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 3 OF 25 FACTS AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS NOT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL AND AS SUCH NO ACTION U/S 263 CAN BE TAKEN. 3. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE CIVIL CONTRACTORS FOR GOVERNMENT DEP ARTMENT (AS MPRRDA). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURNS OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 DECLARING INCO ME AT RS. NIL AND RS. 1 28 910/- RESPECTIVELY AFTER CLAIM ING DEDUCTION OF RS. 56 14 053/- & RS. 14 18 660/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY U /S 80IA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. THE ASSESSMENTS WERE M ADE U/S 143(3) ON 28.03.2013 & 29.10.2013 AT AN INCOME OF R S. 69 490/- AND RS. 2 70 820/- BY ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/ S 80IA AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSES. THE LD. CIT CALLED FOR ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND AFTER EXAMINATION FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED AND WAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF RS . 55 44 563/- AND RS. 14 18 660/- ( EXCEPT RS. 1 12 9 07/- DUE TO CLAIM OF 80IA ON INTEREST INCOME WHICH WAS NOT D ERIVED FROM BUSINESS) WITHOUT PROPER ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGA TION. AS I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 4 OF 25 PER THE FORM 10CCB FURNISHED ALONGWITH THE RETURNS THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMENCED OPERATION ON 30.07.2001 AND HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA FOR THE FIRST TIME I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. HOWEVER FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CLAIM U/S 80IA ON THE BASIS OF AN AGREEMENT DATED 6.10.2008 WITH MPRRDA. T HE PERUSAL OF THE WORK ORDER NO. 507 DATED 6.10.2008 RE VEALED THAT IT WAS WORKS CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE SUCH CLAIM WAS PRIMA FACIE DISALLOWABLE AS THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN WITH REFERENCE TO THE WORK OF DEVELOPMENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF INFRASTRUC TURE FACILITY DONE IN THE INITIAL YEAR I.E. 2002-03. IT WAS ALSO SEEN THAT THE COPY OF TENDERED DOCUMENTS WHICH WAS AVAILA BLE ON RECORD DOES NOT GIVE THE SCOPE OF WORK INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OPERATION MAINTENANCE OF INFRASTRUCTUR E FACILITY. NO OTHER AGREEMENT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. IT WAS ALSO SEEN THAT THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS INCLUDE AMOUNT RECE IVED FROM P.W.D. ALSO. THE AO HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE WHETHER CONTRACT RECEIPTS FROM P.W.D. WERE ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSI ON OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. ON READING OF TENDER ED I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 5 OF 25 DOCUMENTS IT APPEARED THAT THE WORK EXECUTED WAS ON LY A CONTRACT FOR RELAYING OF OLD RURAL ROADS AND THEIR UPGRADATION. THE AO HAS ALSO FAILED TO EXAMINE WHETHER NEW INFRAST RUCTURE FACILITY HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED. THERE WAS NO CAPITAL OUT-LAY BY THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE BILLS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTIO N WORK OF RATES FROM TIME TO TIME AND THUS THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTED MERELY AS A CONTRACTOR. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEES RESPONSIBIL ITY WAS LIMITED TO THE JOB ASSIGNED TO HIM WHICH CLEARLY DO ES NOT SATISFY THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SEC 80IA OF T HE ACT. THE LD. CIT HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXEC UTED CONTRACT WITH MPRRDA FOR EXECUTION OF THE WORK OF CONSTRUCTION/UPGRADATION OF RURAL ROADS UNDER PMGSY PHASE IX PACKAGE NO. MP-27-12 NEEMUCH AND ROUTINE MAINTEN ANCE WORK. THUS THE ASSESSEE WAS EXECUTING ONLY A WORK CON TRACT AWARDED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT PAYMENT FOR THE WORK DONE WAS BEING RECEIVED STEP BY STEP THROUGH RUNNING BILL S AND NO CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT WAS INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE OF ITS OWN AND ALL THE WORK IS BEING DONE AS PER THE SPECIFICA TION OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXECUTE ANY WO RK OF HIS OWN. I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 6 OF 25 4. THE LD. CIT FURTHER NOTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND 2011-12 THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PRO VISIONS FOR COST OF MAINTENANCE AND RECTIFICATION. THE GUAR ANTEE WAS FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS AMOUNTING TO RS. 71 28 907/ - AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION WHEREAS IT WAS E VIDENT FROM THE ACCOUNT THAT THERE WAS ALREADY HUGE CREDIT OF RS. 2 08 34 122/- AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND FOR THE YEAR THERE WAS A DEBIT OF ONLY RS. 28.62 LAKHS. THE ADDIT IONAL CREDIT TO THE ACCOUNT OF RS. 71.28 LAKHS AND WAS THEREFORE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. ACCORDI NGLY THE LD. CIT HAS ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHICH WAS REPL IED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT HAD DISCUSSED THE REPLY O F THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT OBSERVED THAT THE AGREEMENT D ATED 6.10.2008 STIPULATES THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL CONSTRUC T THE ROAD OF 24.30 KMS. THE CLAUSE NO. (11) PROVIDES FOR MAIN TENANCE OF THE SAID ROAD. THE LD. CIT NOTED THAT AS PER PROVIS IONS OF SEC 80IA(4) DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE FOR (I) DEVELOPING OR (II) OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR (III) DEVELOPING OPER ATING AND MAINTAINING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. THE DEDUCT ION IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN A CASE WHERE DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING HAS I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 7 OF 25 BEEN UNDERTAKEN. THUS AS PER ASSESSEES OWN ADMISS ION IT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSE E HAS CLAIMED THAT SECTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT NEW INFRA STRUCTURE FACILITIES SHOULD BE DEVELOPED. HOWEVER THIS CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT IN THE LIGHT OF P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(4)(I)(B) WHERE IT STATES THAT THE AGRE EMENTS SHOULD BE DEVELOPING OR OPERATING AND MAINTAINING O F OR DEVELOPING OPERATING AND MAINTAINING A NEW INFRASTRU CTURE FACILITY. THE LD. CIT HAS ALSO OBSERVED ON THE BASI S OF PAGE 11 OF THE INSTRUCTION TO BUILDERS PARA 2.1 & 2.2 THAT MPRRDA IS THE EMPLOYER AND IT HAS EMPLOYEES. THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR FOR CONSTRUCTION AND UPGRADATION OF SELE CTION OF RURAL ROAD UNDER PMGSY. THEREFORE THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOR MAKING PLANNING DESIGNING AND DEVELOPIN G THE ROADS BECAUSE THE ROADS ARE ALREADY SELECTED AND E XISTED WHICH WERE EARMARKED FOR UPGRADATION THE CONSTRUCTIO N BY MPRRDA. THE LD. CIT HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. AC IT THE I.T.A.T. INDORE BENCH IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONCLUSIO N. THE LD. CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE CHART OF THE PROVISIO NS MADE AND I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 8 OF 25 THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 TO 2009-10 DOES NOT SHOW THAT MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURR ED FOR FIVE YEARS IN RESPECT OF RELEVANT PROJECT. HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR ALLOWING TH E PROVISIONS FOR AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT. THIS EXAMINATION WAS ALSO NOT BEFORE THE AO AND HENCE THE ORDER SO PASSED WAS REND ERED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE ON THIS COUNT. THE LD. CIT HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG 299 ITR 435 (MP) SMT. ZUBI KOCHAR VS. ACIT 112 TTJ 297 ( I.T.A.T. DELHI) AND MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED VS. CIT 243 ITR 3 (S.C.) AND HELD THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AS W ELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. ACCORD INGLY ASSESSMENT WAS SET-ASIDE WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFTER EXAMINING THE SAID ISS UE AND AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S 263 THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEALS BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT THE AO AT PAGE I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 9 OF 25 2 IN PARA 7 DISCUSSED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IA AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 69 490/- AND RS. 1 12 907/ - BEING THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOT ALLOWAB LE U/S 80IA. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS OF DEDUCTI ON CLAIMED UNDER CHAPTER VIA WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE ASSE SSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH STATE GOVERNMENT WHI CH STIPULATES THAT THE COMPANY WILL ALSO AT ITS OWN COST WOULD MAINTAIN THE ROAD FOR THREE YEARS. THE ASSESSEE COM PANY HAS CARRIED OUT THE WORK FOR DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING THE ROAD WHICH IS ONE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURES FACILITY AND ELI GIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4). THE ASSESSEE IS RESPONSIBLE TO CARRY OUT ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE RECTIFIC ATION OF THE WORK FOR THE SAME THE DEPARTMENT WITHHELD 10% OF THE AMOUNT BILLED AND PASSED AND WHICH IS RELEASED ONLY AFTER FURNISHING BANK GUARANTEE OF THE EQUAL AMOUNT TO TH E DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED 7% OF THE CON TRACT RECEIPTS TOWARDS ESTIMATED COST OF MAINTENANCE RECT IFICATION AND GUARANTEE WORK WHEREAS THE DEPARTMENT HAS ESTIM ATED AND WITHHELD 10% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPT FOR REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE RECTIFICATION AND GUARANTEE WORK FOR A PERIOD OF I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 10 OF 25 SIX MONTHS. THEREFORE THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE WHOLE TENDER IS FOR TH E CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ROAD. IT IS NOT A MERE CONTRACT AS STIPULATED IN SEC 80IA(13). THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 80IA IS FULLY SATISFIED. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO INVITED OUR ATT ENTION TO THE AUDIT REPORT U/S 80IA AND FORM 10CCB AND REPLY TO T HE QUESTIONNAIRE FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AFTER D UE APPLICATION AND EXAMINATION OF APPLICABILITY OF SEC 80IA(4). THEREFORE THE ACTION U/S 263 TAKEN BY THE CIT IS B AD IN LAW AND ORDER DESERVES TO BE SET-ASIDE. FOR THIS PURPOS E THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLAC ED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RATLAM COAL ASH COMPANY 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT VS. A.K. TIMBER 177 ITR 486 ( P&H) CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LIMITED 203 ITR 108 (BOM) AND OTHERS AS PER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. CIT(DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT PASSED U/S 263 AND SUBMITTED THAT WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE CLAIM I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 11 OF 25 OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA WHETHER THE CONDITIONS LAID D OWN U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT ARE SATISFIED OR NOT. THE AO HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS A WORKS CONTRACTOR OR DEVELOPING NEW INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. THE LD. CIT (DR) HAS ALSO RELIED IN THE CASE OF M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTUR E PRIVATE LIMITED IN I.T.A.NO. 263/IND/2015 DATED 26.03.2012 (A.Y.2009-10) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE WOR K CONTRACT AWARDED BY THE CENTRAL/STATE GOVERNMENT FOR EXECUTING WORKS CONTRACT WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR TAX BENEFIT U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (DR) HAS ALSO PLACED R ELIANCE IN THE CASE OF M/S. S.C.C. PROJECTS PVT.LTD.VS. ADDL. CIT RANGE 3 INDORE IN I.T.A.NO. 67/IND/2010 DATED 26.03.2012 I N SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. THE LD. CIT (DR) HAS ALSO BROUG HT TO OUR NOTICE THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IA(4) DOES NOT APPLY TO WORKS CONTRACT. THE LD. CIT (DR) HAS FILED A COPY OF CLARIFICATORY NOTES IN SUPPORT OF EXPLANATION ADDE D TO SECTION 80IA(4) W.E.F. 01.04.2000 BY FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 200 9 WHEREIN IT WAS PROVIDED THAT SECTION 80IA(4) WOULD N OT APPLY TO WORKS CONTRACT AND THE EXPLANATION IS CLARIFICATO RY HENCE IT IS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND THE BUSINESS WHICH IS HANDLING I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 12 OF 25 NATURE OF WORKS CONTRACT AWARDED BY ANY OTHER PERSON AND EXECUTED BY AN UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE G ONE THROUGH ALL THE JUDGEMENTS CITED BY THE PARTIES BEF ORE US. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE LEGAL ISSUE WITH REFERENCE TO TH E JURISDICTION OF INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LEARNED CIT. THE SCHEME OF THE IT ACT IS T O LEVY AND COLLECT TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THIS TASK IS ENTRUSTED TO THE REVENUE. IF DUE TO E RRONEOUS ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE REVENUE IS LOSI NG TAX LAWFULLY PAYABLE BY A PERSON IT WILL CERTAINLY BE PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. AS HELD IN THE CASE O F MALABAR INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. VS. CIT ( 243 ITR 83 (SC) TH E COMMISSIONER CAN EXERCISE REVISION JURISDICTIONAL U /S 263 IF HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS (I)ERRONEOUS; AND ALSO (II) PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE WORD ERRONEOUS HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT HAS BEEN HOWEVE R DEFINED AT PAGE 562 IN BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY (SEVENTH EDITION) THUS; I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 13 OF 25 ERRONEOUS ADJ. INVOLVING ERROR DEVIATING FROM T HE LAW. THE WORD ERROR HAS BEEN DEFINED AT THE SAME PAGE IN TH E SAME DICTIONARY THUS: ERROR NO. 1 : A PSYCHOLOGICAL ST ATE THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO OBJECTIVE REALITY; A BRIEF THAT WHAT IS FALSE IS TRUE OR THAT WHAT IS TRUE IS FALSE. AT PAGE 649/65 0 IN P. RAMANATHA AIYERS LAW LEXICON REPRINT 2002 THE WORD ERROR HAS BEEN DEFINED TO MEAN- ERROR. A MISTAKEN JUDGE MENT OR DEVIATION FROM THE TRUTH IN MATTERS OF FACT AND FROM THE LAW IN MATTERS OF JUDGEMENT ERROR IS A FAULT IN JUDGE MENT OR IN THE PROCESS OR PROCEEDING TO JUDGEMENT OR IN THE EX ECUTION UPON THE SAME IN A COURT OF RECORD; WHICH IN THE CI VIL LAW IS CALLED A NULLITYIE (TERMES DE LA LEY) SOMETHING I NCORRECTLY DONE THROUGH IGNORANCE OR INADVERTENCE S.99 CPC AN D S.215 CR.PC. ERROR FAULT ERROR RESPECTS THE ACT; FAULT RESPECT THE AGENT AN ERROR MAY LAY IN THE JUDGEMENT OR IN THE CONDUCT BUT A FAULT LIES IN THE WILL OR INTENTION. 9. SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT SEEKS TO REMOVE T HE PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE BY THE ERRONEOUS OR DER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION ER TO INITIATE SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS EITHER WHERE THE ASSES SING I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 14 OF 25 OFFICER TAKES A WRONG DECISION WITHOUT CONSIDERING TH E MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD OR HE TAKES A DECISIO N WITHOUT MAKING AN ENQUIRY INTO THE MATTERS WHERE SUCH INQUI RY WAS PRIMA FACIE WARRANTED. THE COMMISSIONER WILL BE WELL WI THIN HIS POWERS TO REGARD AN ORDER AS ERRONEOUS ON THE G ROUND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE ACCEPTING THE CL AIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN. THE REASON IS OBVIOU S. UNLIKE THE CIVIL COURT WHICH IS NEUTRAL IN GIVING A DECISIO N ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE IT THE ROLE OF A N ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS NOT ONLY THAT O F AN ADJUDICATOR BUT ALSO OF AN INVESTIGATOR. HE CANNOT REMAIN PASSIVE IN THE FACE OF A RETURN WHICH IS APPARENTLY IN ORDER BUT CALLS FOR FURTHER ENQUIRY. HE MUST DISCHARGE BO TH THE ROLES EFFECTIVELY. IN OTHER WORDS HE MUST CARRY OUT INVES TIGATION WHERE THE FACTS OF THE CASE SO REQUIRE AND ALSO DECI DE THE MATTER JUDICIOUSLY ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS COLLEC TED BY HIM AS ALSO THOSE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THE SCHEME OF ASSESSMENT HAS UNDERGONE RADICAL CHANGES IN RECENT YEARS. IT DESERVES TO BE NOTED THAT THE PRES ENT I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 15 OF 25 ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT. IN OTHER WORDS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS STATUT ORILY REQUIRED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) AFTER SCRUTINY AND NOT IN A SUMMARY MANNER AS CONTEMPLATE D BY SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 143. BULK OF THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE`S ACROSS THE COUNTRY IS ACCEPTED BY THE DE PARTMENT UNDER SECTION 143(1) WITHOUT ANY SCRUTINY. ONLY A FE W CASES ARE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S THEREFORE REQUIRED TO ACT FAIRLY WHILE ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN CASES OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS. HE S HOULD BE FAIR NOT ONLY TO THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO TO THE PUBLI C EXCHEQUER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GOT TO PROTECT ON ONE HA ND THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SENSE THAT HE IS NO T SUBJECTED TO ANY AMOUNT OF TAX IN EXCESS OF WHAT IS LEGITIMATELY DUE FROM HIM AND ON THE OTHER HAND HE HAS A DUTY TO PROTEC T THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND TO SEE THAT NO ONE DOD GED THE REVENUE AND ESCAPED WITHOUT PAYING THE LEGITIMATE TA X. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT EXPECTED TO PUT BLINKERS O N HIS EYES AND MECHANICALLY ACCEPT WHAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEF ORE HIM. IT IS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS STATED AND THE I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 16 OF 25 GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE RETURN WHEN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE SUCH AS TO PROVOKE IN QUIRY. ARBITRARINESS IN EITHER ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THE CLAIM HAS NO PLACE. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE COMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE AN ENQUIRY HAS NOT BEEN MADE OR GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED WHERE THE INQUIRIES OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE AND THE GENUINENE SS OF THE CLAIM OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND NOT BECAUSE T HERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH HIS ORDER IF ALL THE FACTS STATED OR CLAIM MADE THEREIN ARE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT. THE COMMISS IONER MAY CONSIDER AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO B E ERRONEOUS NOT ONLY WHEN IT CONTAINS SOME APPARENT ERROR OF REA SONING OR OF LAW OR OF FACT ON THE FACE OF IT BUT ALSO WHEN IT IS A STEREO- TYPED ORDER WHICH SIMPLY ACCEPTS WHAT THE ASSESSEE HA S STATED IN HIS RETURN AND FAILS TO MAKE ENQUIRIES OR EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM WHICH ARE CALLED FOR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN TAKING THE AFORESAID VIEW WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT IN RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI V. CIT (67 ITR 84) (SC) SM T. TARA I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 17 OF 25 DEVI AGGARWAL V. CIT (88 ITR 323) (SC) AND MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD'S CASE ( 243 ITR 83) (SC). 10. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER AN ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED UNDER SECTION 263 IS ERRONEOUS IT SHOULD B E SEEN WHETHER IT SUFFERS FROM ANY OF THE AFORESAID FORMS O F ERROR. IN OUR VIEW AN ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED UNDER SECTIO N 263 WOULD BE ERRONEOUS AND FALL IN THE AFORESAID CATEGOR Y OF 'ERRORS' IF IT IS INTER ALIA BASED ON AN INCORREC T ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW OR NON-APPL ICATION OF MIND TO SOMETHING WHICH WAS OBVIOUS AND REQUIRED APPLICATION OF MIND OR BASED ON OR INSUFFICIENT MAT ERIALS SO AS TO AFFECT THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND THEREBY CAUSE PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 11. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE NEED NOT ONLY BE A POSSIBLE VIEW OF THE MATTER BUT A LSO A VIEW WHICH IS NOT UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. A VIEW WHICH IS CL EARLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING WI LL INCLUDE A VIEW WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW LAID DOWN B Y HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THEREFORE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE A POSSIBLE VIEW OF THE I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 18 OF 25 MATTER AT THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R WAS PASSED CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A VIEW WHICH COMMISSIONE R CANNOT DISTURB IN THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS. 12. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING IT CAN SAFELY BE SAID THAT AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECOMES ERRON EOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNDER S ECTION 263 IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED CONTAINS ERROR OF REASONING OR OF LAW OR OF FACT ON THE FACE OF IT. 2. THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED PROCEEDS ON INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW. IN THE SAME CATEGORY FALL ORDERS PASSED WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. 3. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A STEREOTYPE ORDER WHICH SIMPLY ACCEPTS WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN HIS RETURN OR WHERE HE FAILS TO MAKE THE REQUISITE ENQUIRIES OR EXAMINE I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 19 OF 25 THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM WHICH IS CALLED FOR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 13. WE SHALL NOW TURN TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE TO SEE WHETHER THE CASE BEFORE US IS COVERED BY THE AFORESA ID PRINCIPLES. PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT SHOW ANY APPLICATION OF M IND ON HIS PART. HE SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM MADE U/S 80IA BY MAKING OBVIOUS AND SEMBLANCE DISALLOWANCE AND INTEREST OF R S. 69 490/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND RS. 1 12 9 07/- PERTAINING TO INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 FR OM OTHER SOURCES. THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MECHANICALLY ACCEPTED WHAT THE ASSESSEE WANTED HIM TO ACCEPT WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND OR ENQUIRY. THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS NOT ENOUGH TO HOLD THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OBJECTIVELY EXAMINED OR CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS BECAUSE OF SUCH NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE STOOD AUTOMA TICALLY I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 20 OF 25 ACCEPTED WITHOUT ANY SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PLACED BEFORE US IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AS IT WAS PASSED WITH OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OR ENQUIRY OR VERIFICATION OR OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW IT WAS A FIT CASE FOR THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER TO EX ERCISE HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 WHICH HE R IGHTLY EXERCISED BY SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS A FRESH ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF OBSERVATIONS MADE AND AFTER ASCERTAINING THE FACTS AND AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. REVERTING TO THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AO HAS SIMPLY DISCUSSED T HE DISALLOWANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 69 490/- FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11 AND RS. 1 12 907/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12 BEING INTEREST FROM OTHERS FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE O UT OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. NO OTHER ASPECTS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED WITH REGARD TO NATU RE OF CONTRACT WORK PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HOW COND ITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 80IA(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 A RE SATISFIED. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO E XAMINE I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 21 OF 25 WHETHER THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS FROM P.W.D. WERE ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THE PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 06.10.2008 THAT MPRR DA REVEALS THAT IT WAS A WORK ORDER BEARING NO.507 EXE CUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE SUCH CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PRIMA FACIE INADMISSIBLE AS THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN WIT H REFERENCE TO THE WORK OF DEVELOPMENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. THUS THE A O HAS FAILED TO CAUSE NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION AS REQ UIRED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. THEREFORE TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE AO BECOMES ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY INVOK ED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON THIS ISSUE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PROVISIONS FOR COST OF MAINTENANCE AND RECTIFICATION. THE GUARANTEE WAS MAD E FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS. HOWEVER THE SAME STANDS ALLOWE D AS DEDUCTION WITHOUT EXAMINING THAT THERE WAS ALREADY HU GE CREDIT OF RS. 2.08 CRORES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND THERE WAS DEBIT OF ONLY RS. 28.6 L AKHS. I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 22 OF 25 THEREFORE THE ADDITIONAL CREDIT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 71.28 LAKHS ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THEREFOR E THE ORDER SO PASSED WAS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND OR INVESTIGATION. HENCE THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS INASMU CH AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. WE ALSO NO TE THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS OBSERVED ON THE BASIS OF INSTR UCTIONS TO BUILDERS AT PARA 2.1 & 2.2 THAT MPRRDA IS THE EMPLO YER AND IT HAS GOT EMPLOYEES WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRAC TOR FOR CONSTRUCTION AND UPGRADATION ON THE SELECTED RURAL ROAD UNDER PMGSY. THE LD. CIT HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE CASE OF C IT VS. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG (2008) 299 ITR 435 (MP) WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE AO HAS DONE ONLY A SEMBLANC E ENQUIRY AND THAT TOO IN A VERY SLIPSHOD MANNER AND AO HAD ACCEPTED VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROPER ENQ UIRY AS A RESULT OF WHICH SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TAXABLE INCOME WAS NOT BROUGHT TO TAX THE LD. COMMISSIONER RIGHTLY HELD A SSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TH EREFORE THE ABOVE CASE LAW IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS O F THIS CASE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE LD. CIT HAS ALSO PLACED RELIA NCE ON I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 23 OF 25 VARIOUS CASE LAWS AS DISCUSSED IN THE AFORESAID PARA S THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE ARE O F THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS ERRONEO US AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THEREFO RE THE LD. CIT HAS RIGHTLY ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. OUR FINDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUC TION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT ARE SO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION O F THE COORDINATED BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. SANEE INFRAST RUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED IN I.T.A.NO. 263/IND/2015 DATED 26. 03.2012 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE WORKS CONTRACT ARE AWARDED BY THE CENTRAL/STATE GOVERNMENT FOR EXECUTI NG WORKS CONTRACT WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR TAX BENEFI T U/S 80IA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. THIS VIEW ALSO FIND SUPPOR TS FROM DECISION OF COORDINATED BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. S .C.C. PROJECTS PVT.LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT (SUPRA). 15. WE ALSO FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KATARIA CONSTRUCT ION LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA 31 TAXMANN.COM 250 WHEREIN SCOP E OF EXPLANATION SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009 WI TH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.2000 WAS DISCUSSED WHEREIN IT I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 24 OF 25 WAS HELD THAT WHERE A PERSON WHO ENTERS INTO A CONTRAC T WITH ANOTHER PERSON I.E. WITH SOME ENTERPRISES REFERRED T O IN SECTION 80IA FOR EXECUTING WORKS CONTRACT WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE TAX BENEFIT U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. HENCE THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED BY TH E AO RENDERS THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. 16. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION WE FIND THAT THE RELEVANT PART OF THE AO IN NOT EXAMINING THE MATTER CAREFULLY WOULD RENDER HIS ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUD ICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF FORE GOING PARAS OF THIS ORDER WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED BY THE AO LACKS JUDICIAL STRENGTH TO STAND. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX HAS CORRECTLY EXERCISED HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION AL U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. THEREFORE ALL THE GROUND S OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSID ERATION ARE REJECTED. I.T.A.NOS. 267/I/15 & 318/I/2016 AY :10-11 & 11-12 SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRACONSTRUCTION P.LTD. PAGE 25 OF 25 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2016. SD/- (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (O.P.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2016. CPU*