TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led law that review of an order of ITAT is not permitted in proceedings Under Section 254(2). What is permitted Under Section 254(2) of I.T. Act is rectification of mistake apparent from the record; but there is no mistake apparent from record - Decided against assessee. - M.A. Nos.- 109 & 110/Del/2017 Arising Out of ITA No:- 3953 & 3954/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 8-4-2019 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri Anadee Anth Misshra, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Ms. Vandana Sharma, CA For the Revenue : Ms. Ashima Neb, (Sr. DR) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A) For the sake of convenience, these two Miscellaneous Applications ( MAs , for short) each dated 08.02.2017, filed by the Assessee U/s 254(2) of Income Tax Act on 14/02/2017, in respect of consolidated order dated 11.08.2016 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT , for short) in ITA Nos. 3953 3954/Del/2013, for Assessment Years: 2005-06 2006-07; are being disposed off through this consolidated order. As per records, these MAs were filed by the Assessee in registry on 14.02.2017, and were brought to our notice on 23.05.2017. Respectfully following the ratio of order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal return and filed the revised return u/s 139(5) of I.T. Act on 31.10.2007 withdrawing the deduction claimed u/s 80IB amounting to ₹ 45,16,523/-. Though the revised return was filed for asstt. year 2006-07 within the time limit for asstt. year 2006-07 permissible u/s 139 (5) to I.T. Act, the Ld. AO held that the revised return was not filed suo moto but was filed on the instance of department i.e. when the issue relating to allowability of deduction u/s 80IA of Act was confronted with the assesee in the course of assessment proceedings for asstt. year 2005-06 vide questionnaire dated 4.7.2007 and in view of that, the Ld. AO held that the revision of return for asstt. year 2006-07 will not absolve the assessee of the purview of penalty proceedings under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. Penalty proceedings were initiated by Ld. AO for asstt. year 2006-07 also u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. 2.1. During penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for asstt. year for asstt. year 2005-06 the assessee neither appeared before the Ld. AO nor filed any reply to the show cause notice issued by Ld. AO to the assessee company. The AO levied penalty amounting to ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see would not be liable to imposition of penalty, even if he was not acting bonafide while making a claim of this nature, that would give a licence to unscrupulous assessees to make wholly untenable and unsustainable claims without there being any basis for making them, in the hope that their return would not be picked up for scrutiny and they would be assessed on the basis of self Assessment Under Section 143(1) of the Act and even if their case is selected for scrutiny, they can get away merely by paying the tax, which in any case, was payable by the. The consequence would be that the persons who make claims of this nature, actuated by a malafide intention to evade tax otherwise payable by scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have . 2.1.1. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act amounting to ₹ 10,35,008/- for asstt. Year 2005-06. The assessee submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that at the time of preparing the income tax return for asstt. year 2007-08 it came in the knowledge of the assessee company that such deduction was not available to the assessee. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to ₹ 15,20,262/- u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. The assessee filed appeal against levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that no show cause was issued to the assessee to disallow the deduction claimed u/s 80IB of the IT Act ; that the assessee company claimed deduction u/s 80IB as it was of the view that such deduction is available to them but while preparing return for AY 2007-08, it came to the knowledge of the management that this deduction is not available to the assessee company, and the assessee company immediately revised the returns of income for all the earlier years thereby paying tax due along with interest. The assessee submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that it was a conscious disclosure from the assessee company itself and that such withdrawal did not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in its original return of income filed on 01.11.2006. The assesee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that withdrawal of claim made by the Assessee Company was solely on account of different views taken on the same set of facts and therefore, they could, at the most, be termed as difference of opinion but nothing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee for asstt. year 2005-06 by the AO, in the course of asstt. proceedings for asstt. year 2005-06 asking the assessee to furnish the details of all exemptions and deductions claimed by it in the return of income and to clarify as to why the deduction / exemption claimed by it should be accepted by the Department. Further we have also noticed that at no stage, either before the lower authorities or before us the assessee offered any explanation or information / particulars about the eligibility criteria on the basis of which the deduction was claimed in the original return filed by the assessee. Similarly though the assesee claimed that it came to the knowledge of assessee at the time of filing return for asstt year 2007-08 that deduction u/s 80IB was not available to the assessee ; the assessee has also not provided any explanation or information / particulars as to on what basis it realised at the time of filing income tax return for asstt. year 2007-08 that deduction u/s 80IB of I.T. Act was not available to the assessee. The assesee submitted that claim was earlier made and later withdrawn on account of difference of opinion. However, at no stage has the assessee provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the returns was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. In the cases before us, however, the claim made by assessee u/s 80IB of I.T. Act in original returns of income for asstt. year 2005-06 and 2006-07 were incorrect by assessee s own admission. In fact, the case of the assessee is directly covered against the assessee by decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi). In CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , which is binding on us ; the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court held, after considering CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (supra) as under :- It is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect, in law, would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of the income of the assessee, but it cannot be disputed that the claim made by the assessee needs to be bona fide. If the claim besides being incorrect, in law, is mala fide the Explanation 1 to section 271 (1) would come into play and work to the disadvantage of the assessee. [Para 19] The Court cannot overlook the fact that only a small percentage of the incometax returns are picked up for scrutiny. If the assessee makes a clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is a critical stage after which it is too late, and withdrawal of claims made by the assessee can not save the assessee from penal provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. One can appreciate the matter with the help of illustrative example of a ticketless traveller who is confronted by the Ticket Collector when he is leaving the destination station, and is asked to show ticket. This illustrative example is for analogy only and for no other purpose. The Ticket Collector at the exit gate of a railway station may ask only a small percentage of travellers to show ticket (just as Income Tax Department picks up a small percentage of income-tax returns for scrutiny) and large numbers in the crowd of travellers leaving the station may not be asked by the Ticket Collector to show the ticket. But once a ticketless passenger is confronted by the Ticket Collector and asked to show ticket, (just as in the cases before us, the Ld. AO vide questionnaire dated 04.7.2007 asked the assessee to clarify why exemptions and deductions claimed by it should be accepted) the ticketless passenger cannot get away merely by paying the normal fare. He has to also pay penalty in addition to the normal fare unl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the reasoning earlier given in this order, the assessee would still be hit by Explanation 1(B) to S. 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act and would be still liable to pay penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. Merely because the assessee delayed the filing of revised return of income (for asstt. year 2005-06 and 2006-07) till 31.10.2007, i.e. till the time of filing of return for asstt. year 2007-08 even after receiving questionnaire dated 4.7.2007 ; the assesee cannot claim favourable consideration. One s own mistake or delay can t be used to advance one s cause. In law, nobody can claim the benefit of delays or mistakes on his own part; though it may advance the cause of the other side. 4. In view of the above, penalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act by the Ld. AO for both asstt. years 2005-06 and 2006-07 ; and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) for both these years are hereby confirmed. We uphold the orders of the lower authorities for both asstt. years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee for both asstt. year 2005-06 and 2006-07. (B.1) Relevant portion of M.A. No. 109/Del/2017 is reproduced as under: 1. The appellant company is in receipt of consolida ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. The fact of the matter is however that the SCN could not be replied as it was sent on the previous address of the assessee company. 2.2 In first appeal the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the penalty order vide Appellate Order dated 19.03.2013, wherein he was inter-alia of the view that it is only after the questionnaire dated 04.07.2007 was issued by the Ld. AO asking the assessee to give details of exemption and deduction claimed and also to clarify as to why the claim should be accepted by the Department, that the appellant withdrew the claim of deduction u/s 80-IB. The Ld. CIT(A) also observed that the appellant has failed to prove that it's claim of deduction u/s 80-IB, made in the original return filed was not due to fraud or neglect. In para 4.6 of the Order the Ld. CIT (A) further observed that the appellant has failed to provide any explanation or information/particulars about the eligibility criteria on the basis on which the deduction was claimed and on what basis it was realized (at the time of filing IT return for A.Y. 2007-08 ) that such deduction is not available. That since the appellant has neither explained nor substantiated with any supporting evidence as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons for making the initial claim of deduction u/s 80-IB as also the conflicting view which was the reason d'etre for suo-motu withdrawal of the claim of deduction. The documents in the paper- book inter-alia contained the conditions for claim of Section 80-IB as appearing in the Income Tax Act relevant for the period 2004 ; the excerpts from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (67 taxman.com 158) ; copy of relevant part of Direct Taxes Law and Practice Reckoner Copy of share holding pattern of the assessee (Appellant) which were also supported by the oral submissions made by the counsel of the assessee before the Hon'ble Bench of ITAT wherein the reasons for the initial claim of deduction u/s 80-IB as also subsequent suo-motu withdrawal by way of revised return for both A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07, was explained. 4.1 That the assessee company is a Joint Venture Company / Industrial Undertaking engaged in the business of manufacturing of Centrifugal Fans, which being article or thing specified in the Eleventh Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80- IB unless it happens to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80IB, it clearly show that management has acted bona-fide without any mala-fide. 5. It is submitted that the above reasons were re-produced and highlighted on page 4 of the paper book filed before the Hon'ble ITAT on 08.07.2016 and the share holding pattern of the assessee company as on page 7 of the said paper book was also filed and such reasons were orally submitted by the Counsel of the assessee before the Hon'ble Tribunal during the course of hearing on 25.07.2016, which would explain the bona-fides of the assessee company while making the claim of deduction. That the claim was subsequently suo-motu withdrawn by way of filing revised return both for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, only by way of abundant caution, even though in hind sight it transpires that the appellant company is legally and rightfully entitled to avail the said deduction. 5.1The conditionalities for claim of deduction u/s 80-IB is a complicated law to comprehended and more so when provisions of Industries (Development and Regulation ) Act, 1951 and Notification issued therein are to be read alongwith it. That seen in the context of the above explanation of the assessee appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y way of filing revised return of income. Brief Facts of the case: Facts relating to Penalty Order by AO Appellate Order of CIT(A) for A.Y. 2006-07 2. To briefly re-capitulate, in the original return of income electronically filed by the assessee company for A.Y. 2006-07on 01.11.2006 the assessee had declared income at ₹ 1,05,38,552/- wherein a claim of deduction u/s 80- IB of the Income Tax Act for an amount of ₹ 45,16,523/- was made. That the assessee on 31.10.2007 filed a revised return u/s 139(5), withdrawing the claim of deduction of ₹ 45,16,523/-, thereby revising the total income to ₹ 1,50,55,075/- . In the interregnum, the only act on part of the Ld. AO had been to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, selecting the case for scrutiny assessment. The revised return was subsequently processed u/s 143(1) vide intimation dated 08.12.2008 at the declared revised income. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was issued dated 10.03.2008 and subsequently notices u/s 143(2) were also issued in response to which the authorized representative of the assessee company filed necessary details / documents as called for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the deduction was claimed and how or on what basis it was realized (at the time of filing IT return for A.Y. 2007-08) that such deduction is not available. That the appellant has submitted that the claim was withdrawn on account of difference of opinion. However, what is the difference of opinion has neither being explained nor being substantiated with any supporting evidence. Therefore it has failed to substantiate/ prove that its explanation is bona-fide in terms of Explanation -1(B) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Order of the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 3954/Pel/2Q13 fA.Y. 2QQ6-07) 3. The Hon'ble ITAT has vide its Order in ITA Nos. 3954/Del/2013 for A.Y.2006- 07 has inter-alia in paras 3.1. 3.2 . 3.2.1 3.2.2 confirmed the levy of penalty on the following grounds / reasoning:- (A) That the withdrawal of claim u/s 80-IB of the Act was made by the assessee for assessment year 2006-07 only after questionnaire was issued on 04.07.2007 by the Ld. AO for A.Y. 2005-06, wherein the assessee was asked to furnish the details of all exemptions and deduction claimed by it in the return of income and to clarify as to why the deduction / exemption cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent suomotu withdrawal by way of revised return for both A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07, was explained. 4.1 That the assesse company is a Joint Venture Company / Industrial Undertaking engaged in the business of manufacturing of Centrifugal Fans, which being article or thing specified in the Eleventh Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80-IB unless it happens to be a Small Scale Industrial Undertaking or an Industrial Undertaking referred to subsection- 4 of Section 80-IB. That Small Scale Industrial Undertaking for the purposes of Section 80-IB has been defined in clause fa) to Sub Section 14 of Section 80-IB which means an industrial undertaking which is on the last dav of the previous is year regarded as small scale undertaking u/s 11B of the Industries (Development and Regulation 1 Act. 1951. 4.2 That the assesse company on a bona-fide consideration of the provision of Section 11B of the said permission of Industries (Development and Regulation ) Act, 1951qualified as Small Scale Undertaking therefore the claim of deduction u/s 80- IB was made by it in the original Income Tax Returns for A.Y. 2005-06 2006-07. 4.3 Tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. 4.6 That the conditionalities for claim of deduction u/s 80-IB is a complicated law to comprehended and more so when provisions of Industries (Development and Regulation ) Act, 1951 and Notification issued therein are to be read alongwith it. That seen in the context of the above explanation of the assessee appellant, which was on record before the Hon'ble ITAT, for withdrawing the claim of deduction u/s 80-IB, the case of the appellant is a bona-fide Explanation covered within the meaning of Explanation -1 (B) of Section 271(l)(c) , and does not call for imposition of penalty for concealment of income and which may kindly be considered for rectifying the mistake apparent on record. 5. That the Hon'ble ITAT may also kindly consider the fact that while the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant against the Penalty Order for A.Y. 2006-07 is similar to that of the grounds of appeal in case of A.Y. 2005-06, but the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 stands on a entirely different footing in as much as while the original return of income for this year was filed on 01.11.2006 the revised return of income withdrawing the claim of deduction u/s 80-IB was fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return for A.Y. 2007-08 that such claim is perhaps not admissible u/s 80-IB, is a entirely plausible and bona-fide claim of the assessee. That while the ITR was suo-moto revised by the appellant company on 31.10.2007 itself and the assessment order was passed on 18.12.2008, no separate show- cause notice was ever issued to the assessee company calling for the jurisdiction either for the claim or withdrawal of deduction u/s 80IB. 5.5 That the revised return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 has been as such accepted(and not rejected under Section 139(5) of the Act on the grounds specified therein) and taken on record by the Ld. AO while passing the order u/s 143(3) for this assessment year on 18.12.2008, wherein the profit and gains of business as shown in the revised return has been accepted at an amount of ₹ 1,50,55,080/- and therefore for this reason itself even the initiation of the penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, was entirely misplaced and wrongly premised. PRAYER 6. It is thus prayed that since the facts and circumstances of the case in filing revised return for 2006-07 are entirely different than that of A.Y. 2005-06, it is prayed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 165 Taxman 307 (SC) reference to Para 12 13. ii. Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala P. Ltd. Vs ACIT 196 Taxman 563 Delhi High Court - Decision of Three Judges Bench, reference from Para 26 to 29. iii. Champa Lai Chopra v State of Rajasthan [2003] 131 Taxman 417 (Raj.) eference to Para 6. iv. ACIT Rajkot v Saurashtra Kucch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 173 Taxman 322 (SC) Reference from Para 24 to 37. Honda Seil Power - Hon ble Supreme Court (para 13) In the present case Tribunal was justified in exercising its powers Under section 254(2) when it was pointed out to the tribunal that the judgement of the co-ordinated bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order. Lachman Dass Bhatia is Delhi HC Three Judges Bench Order- Para 26 Their Lordships further took note of the fact that the Tribunal committed a mistake in not considering the material which was already on record and the Tribunal acknowledged its mistake and accordingly rectified its order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentative had represented and filed written submissions and argued in the matter of m/s. Nicotra India Pvt. Ltd. having PAN- AABCN6199B before the Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, E- Bench , New Delhi in appeal no. 3953/Del/2013 related to Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. That in the above said appeal filed before the Hon ble Tribunal the undersigned had filed 3 copies of Paper-Book-Synopsis on 08.07.2016, two copies of which were for the Hon ble Members of the ITAT and 1 copy of which was for Income Tax Department. That a copy of the receipt issued by the Hon ble ITAT in this regard is enclosed with this affidavit. 3. that the aforesaid appeal in case of Nicotra India Pvt. Ltd. was heard by the Hon ble ITAT on 25.07.2016. 4. That the Hon ble ITAT has vide its Order dated 11.08.2016 in ITA no. 3953/Del/2013 for A.Y. 2005-06 has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that at no stage either before the lower authorities or before the ITAT, the assessee has offered any explanation or information / particulars about the eligibility criteria on the basis of which the deduction under section 80-IB was claimed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upport of the claim that the Paper Book had been filed in ITAT on 08.07.2016. She contended that the assessee had an arguable case on merits. She requested for recall of the aforesaid consolidated order dated 11.08.2016 of ITAT in ITA Nos. 3953 3954/Del/2013, for Assessment Years: 2005-06 2006-07. In response to a specific query from the Bench regarding the date of filing of the two MAs, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the MAs were filed within time available Under Section 254(2) of I.T. Act. The Ld. Departmental Representative ( DR , for short) submitted that the contents of the aforesaid Paper Book dated 08.07.2016 would make no difference to the outcome of the assessee s appeal in ITAT. In this regard, she submitted that the crucial fact which goes against the assessee is, that the withdrawal of claim Under Section 80IA of I.T. Act was made not by the assessee voluntarily, but only after questionnaire dated 04.07.2007 was issued by the Assessing officer ( AO , for short) for AY 2005-06. This crucial fact will not alter, either for Assessment year 2005-06 or Assessment Year 2006-07, she submitted, even if the contents of the aforesaid Paper Book dated 08.07.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also subsequent suo-moto withdrawal by way of revised returns, both for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07; is contrary to record. Thus, there is no mistake apparent from record on this count also. (D.2) We have once again perused the contents of the aforesaid Paper Book dated 08.07.2016. We are of the considered view that our decision, vide aforesaid order dated 11.08.2016, to confirm the penalty levied Under Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 will stand, even after reconsideration of the contents of the Paper Book. The fact remains that the Assessee did not withdraw the claim Under Section 80IB of I.T. Act either for 2005-06 or for 2006-07, even after, assessee s case was selected for scrutiny for Assessment Year 2005-06 by issue of notice Under section 143(2) of I.T. Act. The assessee waited till the AO issued questionnaire requiring the assessee to justify the claim Under Section 80IB of I.T. Act for Assessment Year 2005-06, before the assessee withdrew the claim Under Section 80IB of I.T. Act for Assessment Year 2005-06 as well as for Assessment Year 2006-07. Under these facts and circumstances, we reiterate our findings reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007, i.e. till the time of filing of return for asstt. year 2007-08 even after receiving questionnaire dated 4.7.2007 ; the assesee cannot claim favourable consideration. One s own mistake or delay can t be used to advance one s cause. In law, nobody can claim the benefit of delays or mistakes on his own part; though it may advance the cause of the other side. Relevant portion of our aforesaid order dated 11.08.2016 has already been reproduced in paragraph 3.2 of our aforesaid order dated 11.08.2016. Thus, considering the unambiguous views expressed by us in our aforesaid order dated 11.08.2016, there is no mistake apparent from record even on this count, within the meaning of Section 254(2) of I.T. Act. We reiterate that our decision, vide aforesaid order dated 11.08.2016, to confirm the penalty levied Under Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 will stand, even after reconsideration of the contents of the Paper Book. (D.3) Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the assessee has an arguable case on merits, as contended by the assessee; we cannot be persuaded to review our decision in our aforesaid order dated 11.08.2016 dismissing assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT had passed order Under Section 254(2) of I.T. Act, because in the original appellate order of ITAT, a binding precedent in favour of assessee was not considered. However, in the case before us, a binding precedent in the case of CIT v. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi), which is an order of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court, is against the assessee. Further, the decision in the case of Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2011] 196 Taxman 563 (Delhi) (FB) on which the assessee has placed reliance also does not advance the case of the assessee because of clearly distinguishable facts. In Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala (P.) Ltd (supra), the Hon ble High Court held that Tribunal can recall his order in entirety if it is satisfied that prejudice has resulted to party which is attributable to Tribunal s mistake, error or omission and which error is a manifest error. However, in the case before us, as we have already seen, there is no mistake apparent from record. Further, the case of Champa Lal Chopra v. State of Rajasthan [2003] 131 Taxman 417 (Raj.), on which the assessee has placed reliance also does not advance the case of the assessee because o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
