|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1389 Records
-
2014 (7) TMI 1335
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - applicability of provisions of s. 50C in determining the deemed full value of consideration received - AO was directed to recompute the capital gains applying the provisions of s. 50C and the assessee is objecting to the same - HELD THAT:- We wish to point out that it is well settled that the Tribunal is the final fact finding body. The findings of the Tribunal are not liable to be interfered with, unless the Tribunal has taken into consideration any irrelevant material or has failed to take into consideration any relevant material or the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse in the sense that no reasonable person, on the basis of the facts before the Tribunal, could have come to the conclusion to which it has come. In the present case, we have to point out that in the absence of both the lower authorities not considering the provisions of s. 50C, Tribunal in its inherent powers was right in setting aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed u/s. 50C of the Act.
The legal principal that while giving effect to the order of the Tribunal assessed income cannot be enhanced is implicit in each order of the Tribunal. However, since the same has not been explicitly stated in the order of the Tribunal dated 4.4.2014 at para 13, now we amend para 13 of the Tribunal order dated 4.4.2014 and the following sentence is added to para 13 which reads as under:
"Further, the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of the Tribunal shall compute the capital gains by applying the provisions of s. 50C and ensure that the finally decided capital gain does not exceed the capital gains originally assessed in the assessment order." MAs are partly allowed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1334
Product Development Cost - Capital or Revenue - The development was on account of scientific research - evidence on record shows most of the money is spent towards cost of the employees, who had developed the product, multi channel customer relationship management solution, which provides sales, marketing, services, human resources and finance through the medium of e-mail, chat, wireless, fax, phone, etc. to the end users - The expenditure in respect of the scientific research, even if it is capital in nature as it was incurred in relation to the business carried on by the assessee under Section 35(1)(iv) - HELD THAT:- SLP Dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1333
Estimation of income - Rejection of books of accounts - AO directing to apply net profit rate of 8.48% before allowing claim for depreciation, interest & remuneration to partners and interest paid to third parties as against net profit rate applied by the A.O. at 10.5% subject to depreciation and interest and remuneration paid to the partners when provisions of sec. 145 - HELD THAT:- Assessee is a partnership firm deriving its income from execution of contract work undertaken from Government department. The books of account were rejected u/s 145(3) and net profit rate was applied. The Tribunal has also confirmed the application of provisions of section 145(3) of the Act but the assessee had claimed interest paid to third parties while estimating profit under this section.
This issue was stated to be covered by the decision of this very Bench rendered in the case of M/s Ganesh Garhia Construction Co. Vs. ACIT [2014 (5) TMI 1202 - ITAT JODHPUR] - The issue of payment of interest to third parties being clearly covered by the Tribunal order and their consistent view, we modify the order accordingly by making observation that after invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act in this case, interest paid to third parties is also allowable.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1332
Time Limitation - suit for declaration that the three settlement deeds, all dated 27.3.1978 and registered as Document Nos. 248, 249 and 443 of 1978 with the Sub Registrar's Office, Royapuram, is barred by limitation of time - whether an issue of limitation could at all have been taken up as a preliminary issue?
HELD THAT:- In Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi and Ors. [2011 (7) TMI 1305 - SUPREME COURT], while dealing with Order 14, Rule 2, observed that Sub-rule (2) of Order 14 refers to the discretion given to the court where the court may try an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court or the bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force as a preliminary issue - In Ramesh D. Desai and Ors. v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Ors. [2006 (7) TMI 325 - SUPREME COURT], while dealing with the issue of limitation, the Court opined that a plea of limitation cannot be decided as an abstract principle of law divorced from facts as in every case the starting point of limitation has to be ascertained which is entirely a question of fact. The Court further proceeded to state that a plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. On a plain consideration of the language employed in Sub-rule (2) of Order 14 it can be stated with certitude that when an issue requires an inquiry into facts it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue.
In the case at hand, we find that unless there is determination of the fact which would not protect the Plaintiff Under Section 10 of the Limitation Act the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is not a case which will come within the ambit and sweep of Order 14, Rule 2 which would enable the court to frame a preliminary issue to adjudicate thereof. The learned single Judge, as it appears, has remained totally oblivious of the said facet and adjudicated the issue as if it falls under Order 14, Rule 2. We repeat that on the scheme of Section 10 of the Limitation Act we find certain facts are to be established to throw the lis from the sphere of the said provision so that it would come within the concept of limitation.
The issue of consideration has not yet emerged. This settlement made by the father was whether for consideration or not has to be gone into and similarly whether the property belongs to the trust as trust is understood within the meaning of Section 10 of the Limitation Act has also to be gone into. Ergo, there can be no shadow of doubt that the issue No. 1 that was framed by the learned single Judge was an issue that pertained to fact and law and hence, could not have been adjudicated as a preliminary issue. Therefore, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1331
Fee for technical services under Section 9(i)(vii) - Whether the ITAT was right in holding that the commission paid to M/s. Agenta World Trading and Consulting Establishment for procuring export orders, is not fee for technical services under Section 9(i)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? - HELD THAT:- With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard and judgment has been reserved.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1330
Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - legally enforceable debt or not - Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - HELD THAT:- The High Court erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that the debt or liability was barred by limitation and, therefore, there was no legally enforceable debt or liability against the accused. The case before the High Court was not of such a nature which could have persuaded the High Court to draw such a definite conclusion at this stage. Whether the debt was time barred or not can be decided only after the evidence is adduced, it being a mixed question of law and fact.
The High Court could not have quashed the proceedings on the ground that at the time of issuance of cheque, the debt had become time barred and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. The High Court, therefore, fell into a grave error in quashing the proceedings.
Appeal allowed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1329
Penalty u/s 271D - loan in cash and violation is intentional and purposeful - contravention of the provisions of section 269SS - HELD THAT:- The genuineness of the loan creditors and the loan transactions were never doubted by the Department. Moreover, the Department has not taxed these amounts in the hand of the lender i.e. Shri A. Kannan. He also observed that the assessee satisfies the existence of the reasonable cause for contravention of the provisions of section 269SS. When the assessee had shown reasonable cause and the reasonable cause is essentially a finding of fact, no question of law much less substantial question of law would arise. The alleged contravention did not result in any unaccounted transaction and that said transactions were made only to meet the sudden demand in the business activities.
As decided in own case [2013 (10) TMI 1327 - ITAT CHENNAI] the factum of loan and repayments are beyond doubt. The genuineness of the transactions is also not in doubt. It is also established by the assessees that there existed similar emergency for repaying the loan in cash, as the emergency which prompted them to take loans in cash. Therefore, this is a case where there is a reasonable cause for the assessees to repay the loans in cash. In such circumstances, it is to be seen that the violation of Section 269T is technical. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1328
Addition u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D - Tribunal held that no investment is made by the assessee in shares and securities (Mutual funds) out of interest bearing funds - HELD THAT:- Question raised in these appeals is identical to one involved in Income Tax Appeal [2014 (7) TMI 1327 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] even these Appeals fail. They are thus dismissed by upholding the findings of the Tribunal. No costs.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1327
Addition u/s 14A - Substantial question of law - sufficient funds for the purpose of investment available with the Assessee - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has, in relation to the question projected before us as substantial question of law, found on facts that there were sufficient funds for the purpose of investment available with the Assessee .The documentary evidence in relation thereto was produced before the Tribunal. That indicated as to how there was increase in investment by ₹ 242.10 millions in the year whereas the shareholder fund of the Assessee was increased to ₹ 1752 millions. Thus, it is seven times more than the Assessee's investment made during the year. It is also evident that the profit after tax itself was much more and that could have covered the volume of investment.
Concurrent findings have been reversed by the Tribunal by observing that the Assessee has sufficient own funds. When the Assessee has borrowed the funds even when he is having own funds, the presumption always goes in favour of the Assessee that the Assessee made investments out of own funds. We are of the opinion that the only question projected as substantial question of law by the Revenue would not enable us to entertain these Appeals.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1326
Exemption u/s 10(37) - Enhanced compensation received by assessee - Interest on enhanced compensation - HELD THAT:- As decided by ITAT in his brother’s case it is not denied by the revenue that the interest received by the appellant was u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] such interest is part of the enhanced compensation. Enhanced compensation received is exempted u/s 10(37) of the Act and thus dismiss the revenue’s appeal.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1325
The Supreme Court of India in 2014 (7) TMI 1325 - SC Order, with Justices J H.L. Dattu, M.Y. Eqbal, and S. A. Bobde, dismissed the case after condoning the delay. Petitioners represented by Mr. L.N. Rao, Mr. H.R. Rao, and Mr. Sahil Tagotra for Mrs. Anil Katiyar.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1324
Winding up of Company - company unable to pay its debt - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the Company is commercially insolvent and is admittedly unable to pay its debts and deserves to be wound up. The learned Advocate appearing for the Company has on instructions informed the Court that the Company be wound up.
In view thereof, the Company Petition is allowed in terms that the said Company namely, Pratibha shipping Company Limited, having its registered office at 1201/02, Arcadia, NCPA Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021, Maharashtra, be ordered to be wound up by and under the directions, supervision and control of this Hon'ble Court under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and that the Official Liquidator attached to this Hon'ble Court or some other fit and proper person be appointed as the liquidator of the Company.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1323
Maintainability of complaint - Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act - case of appellant is that the date of filing of complaint has not been mentioned in the complaint and the date of service of notice has not been mentioned in the complaint - HELD THAT:- In the light of the language used in Section 138, this court finds five components in section 138, namely, 1. Drawing the cheque, 2. presentation of the Cheque to the bank, 3. returning the cheque unpaid by the drawer bank, 4. given the notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the amount and 5. failure of the drawer to make payment within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. Thus, the offence under Section 138 of the Act would be completed only with the concatenation of all the above components - In the present case, the complaint was maintainable as it was filed satisfying all the above ingredients as laid down in Section 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act.
It is evident that the registered notice was given on 13.10.2006 through his counsel Sri Satish Chandra Kohil, Advocate, through registered post A.D. calling upon the applicant to make payment of the disputed cheques total amounting to ₹ 1,85,000/- to the complainant within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. The applicant even after the service of notice did not pay the amount of the impugned cheques as such the complainant is left with no other alternative remedy but to file the present complaint - Thus it is an admitted fact that the cheque was given by the applicant in favour of the complainant and when the cheque was presented for encashment the same was returned by the bank with the endorsement of insufficient fund on 4.10.2006. The complainant given the notice to the applicant on 13.10.2006 through his counsel within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. The applicant failed to make the payment in due course of the cheque amount within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice and after expiry of the statutory period of notice as provided under Section 138-C, the cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the complaint thus the offence is complete and the complainant had the right to institute criminal proceedings against the drawer of the cheque.
The order summoning the applicant has been passed after adhering to the provision of law, even otherwise the factual dispute, if any, cannot be decided in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which is the subject matter of trial - neither there is any illegality or perversity in the judgement and order passed by the court below summoning the applicant to face trial under Section 138 N.I. Act nor there is any abuse of the process of law is discernible from the order of the learned Magistrate.
Petition dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1322
Bogus purchases - Difference in the copy of account of Hindusthan Syringes & Medical Devices Ltd. with that of the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find that complete reconciliation i.e. entry of purchase as on 31.03.2008 for an amount of ₹ 11,12,794/- was filed. Once reconciliation is filed and the purchase entry is explained, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. This issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Addition of difference in assessee’s accounts and Royal Surgical Pvt. Ltd.’s - HELD THAT:- Assessee got a copy of account in books of Royal Surgical Pvt. Ltd., which was submitted before the AO vide written submission dated 18.11.2010. This copy of account as appearing in the books of creditors i.e. Royal Surgical Pvt. Ltd. was filed before AO and placed on records, clearly indicates that request made by the AO vide letter dated 28.10.2010 has been complied with and there is no discrepancy in the accounts. We find that the CIT(A) has verified the assessment records and considered the ledger copy of that party, which tallies with the assessee firm and hence, the bogus purchases added by the AO has rightly been deleted. We confirm the same. This issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Disallowance of interest paid without deduction of TDS - appellant received form No. 15G from the parties but the said forms were not submitted to the appropriate authority of the I. T. Department - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered by the decisions cited by the A.R. that if the assessee has received form No. 15G then even if the said forms were not submitted to the appropriate authorities, no disallowance can be made u/s. 40(a)(ia). In view of the above, the disallowance is directed to be deleted.” In view of the above reasons, and since the Ld. Sr. DR is unable to produce any contradictory material in the aforesaid order of CIT(A), we find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. This issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1321
Penalty u/s 54 (1)(14) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 - imposition of penalty on the ground that on road checking truck, 948 pieces of timber were found being imported by the respondents and on verification, weight of goods was found excess - AO was of the view that quality of the goods was also different - HELD THAT:- The First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal have recorded findings of fact that the goods were not found in excess and it was covered by proper and genuine documents. Neither the assessing officer nor the inspecting officer have got examined the quality of goods from an expert nor have physically verified the goods after unloading them. No description was recorded with regard to the alleged difference in goods. On these facts, both the Appellate Authorities have recorded findings of fact. They have also recorded finding of fact that goods are properly accounted for in the books of account and there was no intention to evade payment of tax.
There are no infirmity in the findings recorded in the impugned order of the Tribunal to uphold the order of First Appellate Authority - revision dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1319
Addition on account of Arm’s Length Price of international transaction - MAM selection - HELD THAT:- Finding of the CIT(A) that on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case TNMM is the most appropriate method deserves to be upheld as the same is in consistency of the finding of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year [2011 (7) TMI 1364 - ITAT DELHI] . However the CO-ordinate Bench had restored the issue to verify the calculation as they had not been vetted either by the AO or by the CIT(A).
In the facts of the present case the exercise has been done by the CIT(A) against which the Revenue is in appeal before us on the afore-mentioned ground. We have taken ourselves through the findings arrived at in impugned order which has been extracted in the earlier part of this order. On a consideration thereof and in the absence of any argument pointing to an incorrect fact, circumstance or position of law so as to come to a contrary view we find no good reason to interfere with the finding arrived at in the impugned order. Being satisfied with the reasoning and finding arrived at therein the departmental ground is dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1318
Exemption u/s 11(1)(a) - CIT(A) in not allowing standard deduction of 30% from rental income as available u/s 24(a) - HELD THAT:- The issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2004-05 [2013 (10) TMI 875 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein similar claim of the assessee has been rejected by the Tribunal on the reason that the income of a charitable trust is exempt from tax under chapter III of the Act and the said income does not form part of the total income of the entity.
It is only the income forming part of the total income us/ 2(45) of the Act which is to be classified under various heads of income u/s 14. Accordingly, the Tribunal denied the claim of the assessee made u/s 24 of the Act. In the said decision, the Tribunal has analysed various decisions of the Apex Court and the Tribunal. Since, similar issue of allowability of the claim made u/s 24 has been denied by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2004-05, we are of the considered view that the present appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed and thus the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is upheld. Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1317
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - whether the Assessee is a co-operative bank or not? - whether the Assessee is hit by the provisions of Sec. 80P(4) which was introduced in the statute by the Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1.4.2007? - HELD THAT:- It is not necessary that the co-operative society should have a banking licence as per the definition under the Income Tax Act for carrying on banking business. If licence is not obtained it may be an illegal banking business under the other statute. What we have to see whether the nature of the business carrying on by the assessee is a banking business or not. The Income Tax in our opinion is not concerned whether the banking business carried on by the assessee is legal or illegal. The income has to be assessed u/s 14 of the Income Tax Act under the same head even if the nature of the business is illegal. If we look into the bye-laws which consists of fund of the society, we noted that the types of the deposits which the assessee has accepted as per bye-laws are the same as are being accepted during the course of the carrying out the banking activities.
So far as the second condition is concerned, there is no dispute that the paid up share capital and reserves in the case of the Assessee is more than ₹ 1 lac. Therefore, the Assessee satisfies the second condition.
So far as the third condition is concerned, we noted that Sec. 16 of The Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 permits admission of any other co-operative society as a member.
From clause 16, it is apparent that the bye-laws of society does not permit the admission of any other co-operative society as member. Thus the third condition for becoming primary co-operative bank is complied with. Since the assessee society does not comply with all the three conditions, therefore, in our opinion the assessee society does not become a primary co-operative bank and in view of explanation (a) of section 80P(4) it has not to be regarded as a co-operative bank and is not hit by section 80P(4).
Assessee has not to be regarded to be a primary co-operative bank as all the three basic conditions are not complied with, therefore, it is not a co-operative bank and the provisions of Sec. 80P(4) are not applicable in the case of the Assessee and Assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). We, therefore, setaside the order of the CIT(A) not allowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) to the assessee and direct the assessing officer to allow deduction to the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on the income generated for providing banking or credit facilities to its members. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1316
Revision u/s 263 - CIT directing revision to the assessment order to include agricultural capital gain in the computation of book profits u/s 115JB - submission of the assessee is that the profits on transfer of agricultural land falls within the definition of agricultural income and therefore the same is to be reduced from the profits as per profit & loss account while computing book profits u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- The undisputed fact in the case of the assessee is that, the land transferred is agricultural land. This is so because the assessing officer has not assessed the income arising out of those lands under the regular provisions of Income-tax Act. In fact, the Ld. CIT Vijayawada has accepted the correctness of computation of total income under the regular provisions of the Act. Consequently, the profit on sale of agricultural land would become agricultural income u/s 2(1A) of the Act and hence not part of total income as per provisions of section 10 under provisions of Income tax Act, 1961. This profit has to be excluded from the computation of total income. In our view, it should be reduced from the net profits as per profit & loss account while computing the book profits for the purposes of 115JB of the Act. See HARRISONS MALAYALAM LIMITED. VERSUS ACIT [2009 (5) TMI 124 - ITAT COCHIN] - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (7) TMI 1315
Revision u/s 263 - unexplained investment in jewellery u/s 69A - HELD THAT:- After going through the board’s instruction no.1916 we are of the view that though the aforesaid circular is in the context of seizure of gold jewellery but the same can also be applied while considering the unexplained investment in gold jewellery by the assessee. In the aforesaid instruction 1916 dated 11.5.1994, it is clearly mentioned that in case of married lady 500 gms. And in case of unmarried lady 250 gms can be given credit.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of CIT Vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2010 (7) TMI 769 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] taking note of board’s instruction no.1916 has also expressed similar view by holding that though the circular has been issued for the purpose of laying down guidelines for seizure of jewellery but it can also be considered for the purpose of explaining the source of jewellery in terms with the guidelines laid down in the said instruction. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the light of the board’s instruction no.1916 dated 11.5.1994 and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court we direct the assessing officer to work out the unexplained investment, if any, after giving credit for gold jewellery as per clause (iii) of board’s instruction no.1916 dated 11.5.1994. Accordingly, assessee’s appeal is considered to be allowed for statistical purposes.
Assessment u/s 153A - Addition of unexplained cash credit - AO has only disputed the source of investment which is already reflected in the books of accounts and return filed prior to the date of search - HELD THAT:- an amount which has already been recorded in the books of accounts and disclosed in the return of income cannot be made subject matter of assessment u/s 153A of the Act, in absence of abatement of assessment proceeding. We therefore hold that the addition made of ₹ 7,30,000/- is not justified. So far as merits of the issue is concerned, undisputedly the assessee from the very beginning has explained that the amount was received as gift from his father. This fact was confirmed during the assessment proceeding through affidavit of his mother and father’s brother. The assessing officer has simply disbelieved the affidavit without verifying the veracity of the averments made therein, which in our view is not a correct approach on the part of the assessing officer. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Revision u/s 263 - CIT (Central) Hyderabad u/s 263 revising the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A - HELD THAT:- As can be seen the assessing officer in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act has not made any addition in reference to any seized material but has treated the investment made in property of ₹ 7,30,000/- as unexplained credit. This amount has already been shown in the books of accounts and disclosed in the return. Therefore, when there is no assessment proceeding pending on the date of search for the impugned assessment year, the assessing officer cannot consider income which has already been recorded in the books of accounts and reflected in the return filed prior to the date of search.
An amount which has already been recorded in the books of accounts and disclosed in the return of income cannot be made subject matter of assessment u/s 153A of the Act, in absence of abatement of assessment proceeding. We therefore hold that the addition made of ₹ 7,30,000/- is not justified. So far as merits of the issue is concerned, undisputedly the assessee from the very beginning has explained that the amount was received as gift from his father. This fact was confirmed during the assessment proceeding through affidavit of his mother and father’s brother. The assessing officer has simply disbelieved the affidavit without verifying the veracity of the averments made therein, which in our view is not a correct approach on the part of the assessing officer. Hence, the assessing officer having made the addition purely on presumption and surmises without making any enquiry, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we direct the assessing officer to delete the same.
Assessment proceeding initiated u/s 153A which were ultimately completed by the assessing officer - HELD THAT:- Assessing officer at the time of assessment proceeding has conducted enquiry specifically in respect of the loans to M/s. Sai Agro Industries. Merely because the result of such enquiry has not been mentioned in the assessment order, it will not tantamount to assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as it is not a case of no enquiry. Further, CIT has not brought any material on record to show that advances were not in regular course of business. Therefore, on merits also the CIT was not justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as the assessing officer has conducted enquiry and passed the order after application of mind. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we hold that the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act is invalid and therefore, we quash the same.
........
|
9911796707
