TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scheme of law, and should be quashed for this reason also. The Assessing Officer has noted that “ it was also brought to notice of the department that departmental request for approval of the same [i.e. pursuing appeal against Overburden Removal Expenses being held to be deductible under section 37(1)] was rejected by the CoD”. It was in this backdrop and apparently with due deference to the views expressed by the CoD that the Assessing Officer decided not to make this disallowance in this assessment year. Once such a high powered committee as the Committee on Disputes, set up in the Cabinet Secretariat under directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, decides that admissibility of deduction in respect of overburden removal expenses need not be carried to the judicial forums and the income tax department should not agitate its grievance against its admissibility, it is certainly a possible, and desirable, view of the mater that the income tax authorities should stop making an issue of this deduction. It is well settled in law, as held in the case of the Malabar Industrial Co Ltd Vs CIT [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court], that, “when an ITO adopted one of the courses permissible in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifying facts and in conformity with the decision of ITAT, which are to be followed by the tax authorities. (Govindram Seksaria Charitable Trust Vs ITO 168 ITR 387 MP Agrawal Housing Leasing Vs CIT 257 ITR 235 MP) 3) Because, the order of the ld. Income Tax Commissioner is perverse, arbitrary and unsustainable in law and on facts. 4) Because the order U/S 263 of the Ld. Commissioner was very injustice, to the appellant, unlawful, bad in law for void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 5) Because the order Under Section 263 of the Ld Commissioner was passed by ignoring the judgment of CIT Vs Leisure wear export Ltd (2010) 46 DTR (Del) 97 Ramakant Singh Vs CIT (2011) 8 ITR Trb 403 (Pat.) 6) Because, the Ld. CIT erred in law and on facts in holding that ACIT has allowed the removal of overburden (OBR) is revenue expenditure without Proper enquiries. ACIT issued proper notice regarding the enquires of OBR written submission was submitted before ACIT after considering the written submission Various personal hearing Ld ACIT allowed the OBR as Revenue Expenditure. 7) Because, the Ld. CIT erred in Law and on facts in holding that the orders of the AO under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first allowed a deduction of ₹ 950.82 lakhs under section 35 D in respect of onetime payment of lease rent and afforestation charges, as against the deduction of ₹ 1074.24 lakhs claimed by the assessee, but subsequently, vide order dated 26th July 2012 passed under section 154 r.w.s. 143(3), allowed the relief of ₹ 123.42 lakhs and thus allowed the entire deduction as claimed by the assessee. 4. The matter, however, did not rest at that. 5. On a perusal of the assessment records, learned Commissioner initiated the revisions proceedings by issuance of notice dated 29th August 2013 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why the assessment order dated 28th December 2011 passed under section 143(3), as also the rectification order dated 26th July 2012 passed under section 154 r.w.s. 143(3), not be subjected to the revision proceedings, by stating as follows: I have examined the case records of proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment year 2009-10 in your case. It is observed, after examination of records, as under: 1) That assessee has claimed OBR expenses as revenue nature u/s 37 (1) of the Act. 2) The Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer, and, in this regard, reliance was placed on a decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Rama Kant Singh Vs CIT [(2011) 8 ITR (Tribunal) 403]. Learned Commissioner was thus urged to drop the revision proceedings. 7. None of these submissions, however, impressed the learned Commissioner. She was of the view that the appeals filed by the income tax department for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 were dismissed by the Tribunal for want of clearance by the CoD [Committee on Disputes, Cabinet Secretariat- as set up in pursuance of Hon ble Supreme Court s directions in the case of Oil Natural Gas Commission Vs Collector of Central Excise [(1992) 104 CTR 31 (SC)] and such dismissal of appeals by the Tribunal has been hallenged before the Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. It was also noted that as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Limited Vs Union of India [(2011) 332 ITR 58 (SC)], the CoD had outlived its utility and the law requiring PSUs to obtain COD approval for litigation stands recalled. Learned Commissioner further noted that the Tribunal had not decided the appeals on merits of the case but simply d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue' as well as 'erroneous' has been duly defined in the said judgment and strong reliance is placed on the same. Reliance is placed on a similar judgment by the Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahaveer Traders (1996) 220 ITR 167 (MP). 5.4 The assessee company has also stated that power under Section 263 can't invoke merely because the CIT had a different opinion on the matter by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Ramakant Singh Vs. CIT (2011) 8 ITR Trb. 403 (Pat). 5.5 The contention put forth by the assessee is not acceptable since the instant revision under section 263 is not based on any change of opinion. Hard facts have been brought on records in the instant revision to show that the A.O. has completely failed to appreciate the correct set of facts legal position but also failed to make an enquiry, thus, rending the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax*, Patiala v. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation [2010] 186 TAXMAN 105 (HP). The Hon'ble Court has held as under: The Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A), in confirming the stand of the Assessing Officer, has not only consciously disregarded of the stand taken by the coordinate benches of this Tribunal but he has also held these decisions to be incorrect. He has himself stated, in so many words, that he would rather respectfully disagree with the stand of the Tribunal than to follow these decisions. The binding nature of the decisions of the judicial forums is not dependent on the seal of approval by the lower judicial forums. Declining to follow the binding judicial precedents by questioning the correctness of these decisions, rather than loyally following these decisions, is simply a breach of judicial discipline. The conscious defiance of the Tribunal decision by the learned CIT(A) is, therefore, a matter of serious concern and it must be deprecated. Learned CIT(A) had no business to disagree, even if respectfully, with the views of a judicial authority, placed at a higher tier of judicial hierarchy than him; all he, as a judicial authority, was expected to do was to loyally follow the views taken by the higher judicial forum. In this regard, we may only refer to the following observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h below the surface level. Such large opencast mines can cover an area of many square kilometres, as indeed in the case of this assessee. 18. What is very crucial, however, is to appreciate the fact that overburden removal process is not a onetime process in one coal mining site because even in between the coal seams below the surface levels, there could be unrelated layers of soil or rocks which are required to be removed before one can reach the second or third coal seam, and because the same coal seam may be at different levels below the surface as it need not be parallel to the surface level all along. These aspects could be appreciated with the help of following diagrams: (This diagram, as shown by the appellant during the hearing, shows different coal seams and intervening layers of overburden which are required to be removed before reaching the next level of coal seam. In between Purewa top seam and Purewa bottom seam, shown on the left, there are layers of overburden which is required to be removed before the coal extraction can be done from the next coal seam level) 19. Let us, at this stage, go back to the line of reasoning adopted by the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot yet started, as a capital expenditure. 21. The basis on which a mine is classified as a development mine or as a revenue mine has been consistent all along and has been accepted by the income tax department not only in assessment of this assessee but also in the assessments of other similarly placed assessees such as subsidiaries of the Coal India Limited. As the learned CIT(A) has noted, in the extracts reproduced earlier in this order, until the point of time when coal production in a mine reaches 25% of rated capacity in a given mine, it is generally treated as a 'development mine' and thereafter, the 'revenue mine'. It is also noted that for converting a development mine to a revenue mine, earliest of the following conditions is applied:- (a) achieving 25% rated capacity of mine; (b) two years from the point of time of reaching the coal seam; and (c) the area becoming profit earning i.e. sale minus - entire expenditure on OBR and other expenses. This is a standard practice adopted all along and has been accepted as such. There is no good reason to disturb the well settled factual aspect which permeates from year to year and which has reached finality. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the plaintiff and traversable by the defendant, has not been traversed. In that case also a defendant is bound by the judgment, although it may be true enough that subsequent light or ingenuity might suggest some traverse which had not been taken. These observations were made in a case where taxation was in issue. This Court in Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. ITO 1977 CTR (SC) 32 : (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC) stated : At the same time, we have to bear in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi -judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. Assessments are certainly quasi-judicial and these observations equally apply. 22. While dealing with Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Radhasoami Satsang (supra), we may also deal with the observation, relied upon by the revenue authorities, appearing at the end of this judgment to the effect that Counsel for the Revenue had told us that the facts of this case being very special, nothing s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Their Lordships, is wholly fallacious. This observation is in the context of the decision and not the reasons of the decision. The decision is holding the trust eligible for tax exemption de hors revocability of the assessee trust. The reasons for this decision, inter alia, include impact of revocability in this peculiar fact situation as indeed the principles of consistency. The decision does not hold good in all fact situations because of the peculiarity of the facts in this particular case. The reasons, however, continue to bind the lower judicial forums. 25. There is, thus, no merit in the stand of the revenue that the observations made by Hon ble Supreme Court, in the context of principles of consistency and in the case of Radhasoam Satsang (supra), cannot be construed to be of general application. 26. We have also noted that while the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have impliedly held that a mine cannot be treated as revenue mine even after reaching 25% of rated capacity, even after two years from the point of time of touching the coal seam or even after revenues generated by the coal extraction exceed the expenses on overburden removal, whichever is earlier, they h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing Officer has observed that, with due deference to Hon ble ITAT judgments, it is stated that the relevance of the OBR expenses can be examined in connection with section 35E which has neither been pleaded nor considered by Hon ble bench and the CIT(A) has stated that Section 35E of the Act was introduced to deal with amortisation of expenditure on prospecting and developing of certain minerals and the very purpose of this section was to address the treatment to be given for expenses relatable to development of a mine. In the instant, the A.O. has invoked the provisions of this sec. considering the prevailing facts of the case . While the Assessing Offic er thus requires the overburden removal expenses to be examined in connection with Section 35 E, the CIT(A) seems to proceed on the basis that Section 35E governs treatment of any expenses which are relatable to development of a mine . 28. It would be, therefore, appropriate to take a look at the nature and scope of Section 35 E and examine its applicability on the facts of this case. 29. Section 35 E of the Act, which was introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 1970 and with effect from 1st April 1971 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n referred to as the instalment); or (b) such amount as is sufficient to reduce to nil the income (as computed before making the deduction under this section) of that previous year arising from the commercial exploitation [whether or not such commercial exploitation is as a result of the operations or development referred to in sub-section (2)] of any mine or other natural deposit of the mineral or any one or more of the minerals in a group of associated minerals as aforesaid in respect of which the expenditure was incurred, whichever amount is less: Provided that the amount of the instalment relating to any relevant previous year, to the extent to which it remains unallowed, shall be carried forward and added to the instalment relating to the previous year next following and deemed to be part of that instalment, and so on, for succeeding previous years, so, however, that no part of any instalment shall be carried forward beyond the tenth previous year as reckoned from the year of commercial production. (5) For the purposes of this section,- (a) operation relating to prospecting means any operation undertaken for the purpose of exploring, locating or proving deposits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder this section is claimed and allowed for any assessment year in respect of any expenditure specified in sub-section (2), the expenditure in respect of which is so allowed shall not qualify for deduction under any other provision of this Act for the same or any other assessment year 30. A plain reading of this section reveals that this section applies to an assessee who is engaged in any operations relating to prospecting for, or extraction or production of, any mineral but it applies only with respect to the expenditure specified in Section 35E (2). While the assessee fulfils the criterion so far as activity of the assessee is concerned, none of the authorities below has examined whether overburden removal expenses on revenue mines can meet the criterion set out in Section 35E (2). Let us examine that aspect of the matter. 31. Section 35E (2), so far as relevant for our adjudication, provides that (a) the expenses should be incurred, after 31st March 1970, during the year of commercial production and any one or more of the four years immediately preceding that year; and (b) the expenses should be incurred wholly and exclusively on (i) any operations relating to prospect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction under section 35 E even though he does not seek the same, and then deny deduction in respect of qualifying expenditure under any other section, such as section 37(1), on the ground that the assessee has been granted a deduction under section 35 E and the limitation under section 35E (8) has thus come into play. In any event, section 35E (8) is clearly intended to avoid a double deduction rather than restrict an otherwise admissible deduction. It is only elementary that expenditure incurred by an assessee before commencement of his business is normally not deductible, and that, in the case of units engaged in production or extraction of any minerals etc, the business cannot ordinarily be deemed to have commenced unless the commercial production starts. It is in this backdrop that the scheme of Section 35 E needs to be understood. In our humble understanding, the provisions of Section 35 E are enabling provisions to allow deduction in respect of capital expenditure which is not otherwise deductible and these provisions cannot be put to use to restrict the deductibility of expenses which are anyway deductible. While explaining the scope of Section 35E (8), the CBDT circular no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lining supplied by us) will not be available to a foreign company even if such company declares its dividends in India, and regardless of the pattern of its share- holding. It will also not be available to non-resident taxpayers generally. 50. The expenditure to be amortised under s. 35E will be the expenditure incurred under the specified heads after 31st March, 1970, during a 5-year period ending with the year of commercial production , i.e., the previous year in which, as a result of any operation relating to prospecting commercial production of any one or more of the specified minerals or associated minerals commences. The term operation relating to prospecting comprises operation undertaken for the purpose of exploring, locating or proving deposits of any mineral and in particular includes any such operation which turns out to be infructuous or abortive. Where the expenditure on prospecting for, or development of, the specified minerals is wholly or partly met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority, the amortisation will be admissible only in respect of the balance, if any, of such expenditure. Further, where any property or rights are brought into exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , his accounts for the year or years in which the expenditure is incurred have been audited by a chartered accountant or other person as s tated in paragraph 46 and also subject to the requirement that the assessee furnishes along with his return of income for the first year in which the amortisation is claimed, the report of such audit in a form to be prescribed for the purpose, duly signed and verified by the chartered accountant or other person setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed. 54. The amortisation under s. 35E is also available only to the assessee who incurs the expenditure. However, in the case of an Indian company the benefit of amortisation (emphasis by underlining supplied by us) is preserved where the undertaking of the company is transferred to another Indian company under a scheme of amalgamation within the 10-year period of amortisation. In such an event, the amortisation of the outstanding instalments in respect of the previous year in which the amalgamation takes place and the remaining previous years of the 10-year period will be allowed to the amalgamated company and not to the amalgamating company. 55. As under s. 35D, it has been specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and the permission being declined by the CoD is quite another. While in the former case, according to the learned counsel, the matter could still be agitated before the Hon ble Courts above, in the latter situation, as in the present case, there is a conscious decision of the Government of India, which continues to be binding on the tax administration, not to pursue the matter in further litigation before Hon ble Courts above, and, therefore, such a decision cannot be revisited now. It is also pointed out that, whether the tax administration takes up the matter in further appeals before the Hon ble Courts above or not, the decisions of this Tribunal, unless reversed by higher tiers in the judicial hierarchy, continue to bind the tax authorities. The binding nature of the decisions of this Tribunal, according to the learned counsel, is not dependent on the acceptance of these decisions by the tax administration. There are well considered decisions of the coordinate benches directly on the issue, these decisions have not been disturbed by the Hon ble Courts above and, admittedly, the material facts and circumstances of the case are the same as in the earlier years. Learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itigation. The mechanism has outlived its utility. In the changed scenario indicated above, we are of the view that time has come under the above circumstances to recall the directions of this Court in its various orders reported as (i) 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541 dt. 11th Oct., 1991 (supra) (ii) (2004) 6 SCC 437 dt. 7th Jan., 1994 (supra) and (iii) (2007) 7 SCC 39 dt. 20th July, 2007 (supra). (Emphasis by underling supplied by us) 38. What Their Lordships have thus recalled are the directions issued in its earlier orders. These directions, as set out in the judgment dated 11th October 1991, were that It shall be the obligation of every Court and every Tribunal where such a dispute is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from the Committee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of the clearance, the proceedings would not be proceeded with . In the subsequent directions, referred to in this judgments, there were other procedural and peripheral issues with respect to these basic directions. Clearly, therefore, all that has changed, so far as this legal development is concerned, is that the Courts and Tribunals will not demand clearance of the CoD before proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong. It is a purely a factual matter which permeates through different assessment years, and for the detailed reasons discussed earlier, there is no good reason to disturb this criterion. In any case, the authorities below have neither suggested any alternative criterion, which will be appropriate on the facts of this case, nor have they have demonstrated that the facts implicit in their stand actually exist. As a matter of fact, the apprehensions of the Assessing Officer seem to be purely hypothetical and in the realm of conjectures and surmises inasmuch as not one instance is shown in which the overburden removal expenses, booked in the accounts as revenue expenditure, actually pertain to removal of overburden only at the surface level and should be, therefore, treated as capital expenditure. Similarly, while declining the deduction of overburden removal as capital expenditure, the Assessing Officer, as also the CIT(A), has not treated any part of this expenditure, which essentially includes the expenditure incurred on removing overburden in the process of coal mining and production, as revenue expenditure. It seems to be more or less an undisputed position, given the nature of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the above discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we see no legally sustainable merits in the impugned disallowance. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete this disallowance of ₹ 123.42 lakhs as well. 12. As for the learned Commissioner s observation that the expenses claimed for amortization, vide Tribunal s order in ITA Nos. 96 and 97/Jab/1998 for the assessment year 1998-99, were held to be capital in nature and are thus debatable in nature, we find that what can be amortized under section 35E is only capital expenditure or else such an expense will anyway be allowed as a revenue deduction under section 37(1). Nothing, therefore, really turns on the amortized expenditure being capital in nature. It was not the issue before the Tribunal as to whether the expenses in question could be amortized under section 35E, which was the issue before the AO in this case, and, therefore, this Tribunal decision could not have had any impact on the issue. 13. When there are decisions of the coordinate benches, on both of these issues and in favour of the assessee, the order of the Assessing Officer allowing these deductions cannot be said to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be a ground for subjecting an order to revision as well. A co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Synergy Entrepreneur Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT [(2011) 13 ITR Tribunal 377 (Mum)], had an occasion to deal with a somewhat similar situation. That case a case in which in the show cause notice, learned Commissioner held that the loss brought forward could not be set off against profits of the current year, but when the Commissioner was to pass the final revision order, he simply held that the matter is required to be examined afresh in accordance with the law. As to whether such a shift in the stand was permissible, the coordinate bench, speaking through one of us and following the esteemed views of Delhi F bench of this Tribunal in the case of Maxpak Investments Ltd Vs ACIT [(2007) 13 SOT 67 (Del)] articulated through the then Hon ble Vice President Easwar (as he then was; later Hon ble Justice Easwar), held as follows: . A plain reading of the impugned revision order clearly shows that the conclusions drawn in the revision proceedings are different from the reasons for revision proceedings set out in the show-cause notice-extracts from which are set out in the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions about the transactions. The reason given in the show-cause notice is former, while the reason for which revision powers are finally exercised in the impugned order are latter. As to whether such an exercise of revisional powers, on the grounds other than the grounds of revision as set out in the show-cause notice, could be held to be sustainable in law, we find guidance from the decisions of a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Maxpak Investment Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2006) 104 TTJ (Del) 881 : (2007) 13 SOT 67 (Del) which, inter alia, observes as follows: .In CIT vs. G.K. Kabra (1995) 125 CTR (AP) 55 : (1995) 211 ITR 336 (AP) the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dealing with an application seeking reference under s. 256(2), inter alia of the following question : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the CIT lacks initial jurisdiction, particularly when the conclusion made by the CIT in the order under s. 263 was on the basis of the information furnished in response to the initial notice ? While declining to refer the above question, the High Court held as under (pp. 339-340) : The necessary implication ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the firm for the asst. yr. 1966-67 and thus the grant of registration was erroneous. On the basis of this observation it was argued before the High Court on behalf of the Revenue that the Tribunal ought to have sustained the order of the CIT on that ground. Repelling the contention, it was held by the High Court as under (pp. 502-3): The jurisdiction vested in the CIT under s. 263(1) of the Act is of a special nature or, in other words, the CIT has the exclusive jurisdiction under the Act to revise the order of the ITO if he considers that any order passed by him was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Before doing so, he is also required to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. If after hearing the assessee in pursuance of the notice issued by him under s. 263(1) of the Act, he is not satisfied, he may pass the necessary orders. Of course, the order thus passed will contain the grounds for holding the order of the ITO to be erroneous, as contemplated under s. 263(1) of the Act. . . . The Tribunal cannot uphold the order of the CIT on any other ground which, in its opinion, was available to the CIT as well. If the Tribunal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of proper inquiries, which an Assessing Officer ought to have conducted on the facts of the said case, is altogether a different reason from a claim having been allowed on the basis of CoD decision which is no longer legally valid. In view of the above discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we are of the considered view that the impugned revision order is contrary to the scheme of law, and should be quashed for this reason also. 16. There is, however, one more reason on account of which the impugned revision order must be quashed. 17. The reason is this. The Assessing Officer has noted that it was also brought to notice of the department that departmental request for approval of the same [i.e. pursuing appeal against Overburden Removal Expenses being held to be deductible under section 37(1)] was rejected by the CoD . It was in this backdrop and apparently with due deference to the views expressed by the CoD that the Assessing Officer decided not to make this disallowance in this assessment year. Once such a high powered committee as the Committee on Disputes, set up in the Cabinet Secretariat under directions of Hon ble Supreme Court, decides that admis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as taken a conscious view to decline permission to the income tax department to agitate, before judicial forums, on admissibility of a deduction, i t may not really be open to the income tax department to contend otherwise. The whole idea behind setting up the CoD was to avoid unproductive litigation, between the Government entities inter se and to promote mutual conciliation. The fact that these CoD decisions no longer bind the Courts or Tribunals does not negate the fact that to pursue a litigation between the Government entities inter se, and particularly as such litigation is wholly unproductive inasmuch as it is de facto revenue neutral from the larger perspective of the Government as whole, is a decision which is not based simply on the merits of the action of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the very foundation of learned Commissioner s revision proceedings, from this perspective- which we find to be an equally valid school of thought and which cannot be said to be unsustainable in law , proceeds on an incorrect assumption. It is well settled in law, as held in the case of the Malabar Industrial Co Ltd Vs CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], that, when an ITO adopted one of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
