ACIT Vs Veena Developers (ITAT Mumbai)
Pending Supreme Court Appeal No Ground to Defy Binding Orders: ITAT Issues Strictures Against Revenue
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) strongly criticised Revenue officials for repeating a disallowance already decided in the assessee’s favour by higher judicial authorities. It held that filing an appeal before the Supreme Court did not authorise the Assessing Officer to disregard binding appellate orders.
In ACIT v. Veena Developers, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeals concerning deduction under Section 80IB(10). Although it had called upon officials to explain why exemplary costs and a contempt reference should not follow, it ultimately decided not to proceed further against them after considering their written apologies and explanations.
Case Details
The order was pronounced on August 13, 2014, by R.C. Sharma, Accountant Member, and Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member, in ITA Nos. 5820, 5821 and 5822/Mum/2012. The appeals related to assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 and challenged the CIT(A)’s common order dated June 28, 2012.
Deduction Already Allowed in Earlier Proceedings
The assessee, a builder and developer, claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) for its housing projects, “Veena Sur” and “Veena Sarang”. For assessment year 2005-06, the claims amounted to ₹18,74,410 and ₹96,72,540 respectively.
The Assessing Officer initially denied the deduction, citing commercial units within the projects. The CIT(A) granted proportionate relief for income attributable to the residential area. On further appeals, the Tribunal allowed the deduction in full.
For assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, the Bombay High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals. The Revenue’s counsel had accepted before the High Court that the issue was covered against the Department by CIT v. Brahma Associates.
Disallowance Repeated After Search
A search was conducted at the premises of the Sanghavi Group on July 10, 2009. The assessee, being a group member, received notices under Section 153A.
In the subsequent assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer again denied the deduction. His stated reason was that the Department had not accepted the High Court’s decision and had approached the Supreme Court.
For assessment year 2005-06, the repeated disallowance totalled ₹1,15,46,950. The assessment order also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).
No fresh material or evidence affecting the deduction claim had been found during the search. The disallowance rested on the same grounds considered in the earlier litigation.
CIT(A) Deletes the Repeated Disallowance
The CIT(A) held that the pending appellate proceedings did not abate because of the search. He distinguished pending assessments or reassessments from appeals, revisions and rectification proceedings.
Since no fresh search material disturbed the deduction claim, he held that the Assessing Officer could not reconsider the issue already adjudicated in the earlier proceedings.
He directed allowance of the deduction and adoption of the income determined after giving effect to appellate orders, subject to revision following the decisions of the Supreme Court or High Court, as applicable.
Judicial Discipline Cannot Be Ignored
The Tribunal described the repeated disallowance as a gross abuse of the process of law and disregard of higher judicial orders. It also questioned the approval granted for filing another round of appeals on the settled issue.
Relying on Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation, the Bench reiterated that subordinate authorities must follow higher appellate orders unless their operation has been suspended by a competent court.
Merely treating an issue as pending before the Supreme Court did not permit the Assessing Officer to negate the existing decisions. Any subsequent ruling favouring the Revenue could be implemented in accordance with law.
Officials Apologise; Further Action Dropped
The Tribunal required the concerned Assessing Officer and the Commissioner who approved the appeals to appear and explain their conduct, including why a contempt reference should not be made to the High Court.
The officials subsequently appeared and submitted written apologies. They stated that they had no intention to disrespect judicial orders and had acted on collective departmental recommendations to protect Revenue’s interests, maintain consistency and keep the issue alive.
Considering these explanations and the collective nature of the decision, the Tribunal considered it inappropriate to proceed further against those officials. It did not impose exemplary costs or make the proposed contempt reference.
Revenue Powers Must Remain Within Legal Limits
The Bench nevertheless warned that protecting Revenue or keeping an issue alive would not excuse misuse of authority. Repeatedly invoking assessment, reassessment or revision provisions on unchanged facts could cause endless litigation and taxpayer harassment.
It emphasised that Revenue officers must exercise their extensive statutory powers legally and diligently. Their efforts to protect departmental interests could not justify crossing the limits of their jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s deletion of the additions under Section 153A and dismissed all three Revenue appeals.
It directed its Registry to send the order to the CBDT Chairman so that necessary instructions could be issued to officers and Commissioners regarding compliance with higher judicial orders and avoidance of frivolous appeals.
Cases Discussed
- CIT v. Brahma Associates — Bombay High Court. Relied upon regarding deduction under Section 80IB(10).
- Union of India and Others v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation — AIR 1992 SC 711. Judicial discipline requires subordinate authorities to follow binding appellate orders.
- CIT v. Sairang Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. — ITA No. 2603 of 2011, Bombay High Court, decided on 28 April 2014. Discussed regarding frivolous Revenue appeals.
- CIT v. Kishan Ratilal Choksey Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. — ITA No. 1001 of 2011, Bombay High Court, decided on 17 April 2014. Discussed regarding repeated litigation on settled issues.
- CIT (Central), Kanpur v. Smt. Shaila Agarwal — (2011) 16 taxmann.com 232 (Allahabad High Court). Discussed regarding abatement under Section 153A.
- Guru Prerna Enterprises v. ACIT — (2011) 57 DTR 465 (ITAT Mumbai). Discussed regarding reassessment of concluded issues under Section 153A.
- ITO v. Deepa Restaurant & Bar P. Ltd. — ITA No. 1336/Mum/2012, ITAT Mumbai, decided on 5 February 2014. Discussed regarding reopening after annulment of an assessment.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The above titled appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] dated 28.06.2012 pertaining to Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 &2006-07. Since the facts and issues involved therein are identical in nature, hence, these are taken together for disposal by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from ITA No.5821 for A.Y. 2005-06.
2. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80113(10) of Rs.18,74,410/- without appreciating the fact that the area of the commercial tenements occupied in respect of “Veena Sur” project is 1488 sq.ft thus violating the conditions of 801B(10) of the LT Act 1961.
2. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 801B(10) of Rs.96,72,540/- without appreciating the fact that the area of the commercial units occupied in respect of “Veena Sarang” Project is 4637 sq.ft out of a total area of the project 8040 sq. metres. Thus violating the conditions of 80IB(10) of the LT Act 1961.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) as applicable prior to 1st April 2005 is available to the assessee in respect of profits on shops constructed and sold in its “housing projects.”
4. The order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
5. The applicant craves leave to add, alter, amend, and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business as builders and developers. For the relevant Assessment Year (AY), the assessee in its return of income declared the total income of Rs.38,190/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred Ninety only) after claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10) in respect of housing projects “Veena Sur” and “Veena Sarang” amounting to Rs.18,74,410/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Four Hindered Ten Only) and Rs.96,72,540/- (Rupees Ninety Six Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Five Hundred forty only) respectively. The assessee firm had also commenced another housing project titled as “Veena Santoor” eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, for which no deduction was claimed for the relevant year. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) in the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, in toto. Being aggrieved against the said disallowance, the assessee firm filed an appeal before CIT(A), who gave part relief to the assessee allowing proportionate deduction in respect of the income derived from the residential area.
Against the order of the CIT(A), both the Department as well as assessee went into appeal before this Tribunal, which decided the issue in favour of the assessee, allowing full deduction u/s.80IB(10) as was claimed by the assessee. The department went into further appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which in turn dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the decision of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee.
Subsequently, a search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of Sanghavi Group on 10.07.2009. The assessee, being a group member of the said Sanghavi Group, notice u/s.153A was issued by the AO to the assessee, to file the return of income for the pending six Assessment Years i.e. from A.Y. 2004-05 to A.Y. 2009-10. In response of the said notice, the assessee filed its return of Income for the AY 2005-06 declaring again the same total income of Rs.38,190/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred Ninety Only) which was declared in the original return. Thereafter, the AO passed identical orders in A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005- 06 on 28.12.2011 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, disallowing the claim made u/s.80IB(10) merely on the ground that the department has not accepted the order of the Hon’ble High Court and has further preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the issue was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the Assessment order is extracted as under:
“10. In this case, scrutiny assessment has already been completed for the AY 2004-05 by the then AO. The then Assessing Officer has rejected the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) for the project Veena Sur and Veena Sarang on the ground that the both the projects contained an element of commercial unit violating the conditions of 80IB(10). The assessee preferred an appeal against the above order. The Hon’ble CIT(Appeals) gave proportionate allowance and the Hon’ble ITAT gave a decision completely in favour of the assessee.
11. For the relevant assessment year, the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court has given a decision in favour of the assessee against which the department is in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12. The view of the totality of the facts and circumstances involved in the instant case, the issue of claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) is under litigation and subjudiced owing to the fact that the identical issue is pending with the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
13. After considering the issue of claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10), the decision of which is pending, deserves to be negated and accordingly, the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) at Rs.1,15,46,950/- of the assessee cannot be entertained and is hereby rejected. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is here by initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the return of income.”
4. The assessee, being aggrieved from the order of the AO, filed appeal before the CIT(A).
The ld. CIT(A) after going through the facts and circumstances of the case observed that the disallowance in assessment proceedings u/s 153A was not justified merely because the department has preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court in relation to the additions made in original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the act. The relevant observations of the ld. CIT(A) are extracted as under:
“4. I have carefully considered the facts on record and submission of ld. AR from the facts of the case, it is noticed that no new material or evidences have been found and/or seized during the course of search in respect of claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. The AO has also categorically mention in the assessment order that the claim of deduction u/s.80IB (10) is being disallowed for same reasons on which it was disallowed in original assessment proceedings only because the issue involved is under litigation and subjudiced owing to appeal being pending before Ho’ble. Supreme Court. As is evident from the assessment orders, the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) disallowed by AO on the ground of some commercial area in the housing project, has been allowed in full by Hon’ble ITAT in all these years in the first round of assessment proceedings. Further, in A.Yrs. 2004-05 & 2005- 06, Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has also dismissed the appeal of revenue and matter is pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP filed by the department. In A.Y.2006-07, departmental appeal is pending before Hon’ble High Court. Thus, the issue of disallowance of deduction u/s.80IB(10) on the ground of Commercial area therein, already stands allowed in the favour of appellant and hence appellant’s claim u/s.80IB(10) deserves to the allowed. However, an important legal issue which emerges from the facts of the case and submission of appellant is that whether issues already decided in earlier assessment proceedings can be reconsidered without change of facts and law and whether pending appellate proceedings shall also abate as a result of search action. I this regard, legal position is as under:-
(i) As per Second Proviso to Section 153A(1), the assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within he period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of search shall abate. Thus, the plain reading of this proviso makes it abundantly clear that only the assessment or re- assessment pending on the date of search will abate.
(ii) The CBDT has issued a circular No.7 of 2003 dt.05.09.2003 explaining provision of Finance Act and para no.65.5 of this Circular clarifies that the appeal, revision or rectification proceedings pending on the date of initiation of search shall not abate. Thus, in view of this circular also, the pending appeal proceedings as on the date of the search will not abate.
(iii) The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT(central), Kanpur vs. Smt. Shaila Agarwal (2011) 16 Taxmann.com 232 (All.) has also considered the provisions of section 153A and not the pending appeal against the assessment or reassessment which has been completed. It has also been held that regular assessment proceedings which have become final will not also abate.
(iv) Hon’ble judicial ITAT in the case of Guru Prerna Enterprices vs. ACIT(2011) 57 DTR 465 (Mum) (Trib) as also considered the similar issue and held that only the assessment pending before the A.O. for completion shall abate and u/s.153A, the issue decided in assessments cannot be reconsidered or re-adjudicated, unless there is a fresh material found during the course of search in relation to such points.
4.1 In view of the above discussion and legal position, thus, it is abundantly clear the assessment or re-assessment pending on the date of search shall only abate and appeal or revision proceedings which are pending on the date of search shall not abate. In the cases under consideration, the appeal proceedings before Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of allowability of deduction 80IB(10), are pending which under the provisions of section 153A, cannot be considered as abated and hence the issue already adjudicated and pending for consideration in appellate proceedings cannot be re-adjudicated by the A.O unless some fresh material has been found during the course of search. Undisputedly, no material or evidence has been found in the case of appellant which may disturb the claim made u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. Thus, I hold that the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) again on the same ground in the order passed u/s.153A is not in accordance with the provisions of law and hence the deduction u/s.80IB(10) is directed to be allowed. However, the AO is further directed to adopt the income determined after appeal effect in the respective assessment years subject to revision as a result of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court, as the case may be. The grounds No.4 & 5 are allowed, accordingly.”
5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. We have heard the ld. representatives of the parties and have also gone through the record. The matter was first heard on 2.6.14. On the said date, ld. AR of the assessee carried us through the order of this Tribunal dated 25.9.2009 in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and further order dated 18.11.2011 for the relevant assessment year 2006-07. He further brought our attention to the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 28.2.2011 in relation to the appeals preferred by the Revenue against the order of the ITAT for A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06. A perusal of the said order of the Hon’ble High Court reveals that the ld. Counsel of the Revenue had fairly admitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the issue was covered against the Revenue by the earlier decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of “CIT v/s Brahma Associates” and accordingly the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. After going through the said orders, we felt that this case was of gross misuse of powers by the lower authorities. Accordingly it was directed that the AO should personally appear and explain the position. The matter was posted for 4.6.2014. However, on 4.6. 2014, the concerned AO did not appear, hence the following order was passed:
“Date: 04.06.14
On the last date of hearing i.e. 02.06.14, the ld. A.R. brought to the knowledge of the bench that the issue in dispute relating to the allowability of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act had already been decided by the Tribunal and thereafter upheld by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in assessee’s own case for the very same assessment year in favour of the assessee. The Assessing Officer in complete disregard and disobedience to the orders of the Tribunal as well as of the Hon’ble High Court again confirmed the disallowance while framing assessment under section 153A of the Act without any incriminating material being found during the search. Since it was a prima-facie case of disregard and disobedience to the order of the higher authorities i.e. of this Tribunal as well as of the Hon’ble High Court, hence concerned D.R. was asked to call the Assessing Officer personally to explain his position in this respect and the case was adjourned for today.
Today, the ld. D.R. has produced a letter on the file and submitted that he has already requested to the concerned CIT (Central), Pune to instruct the concerned Assessing Officer namely Shri Omnakuttan to appear before the Tribunal for the said purpose. He has further requested for grant of at least one month’s time for the compliance of the instructions of the Tribunal. The ld. A.R. during the hearing has further brought to our notice that the fact of the decision of the ITAT as well as of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was very much in knowledge of the Assessing Officer and he has also mentioned about the said decisions in the assessment order dated 28.12.11. However, despite a clear cut finding in favour of the assessee for the very assessment year of this Tribunal as well as of the Hon’ble High Court, the concerned Assessing Officer again disallowed the claim only on the ground that the department has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The act of negating the orders of the higher authorities i.e. of this Tribunal as well as of the Hon’ble High Court in the very same case and thereby disallowing the claim of the assessee in the assessment proceedings under section 153A without any new evidence or incriminating material being found amounts to the gross abuse of process of law in complete disregard and disobedience to the orders of the higher authorities and is an act which tends to lower down the authority of the higher courts. We may observe that if at all the issue will be decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in favour of the Revenue, then the orders of the lower authorities in that event would automatically merge in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and implemented accordingly. However, the mere filing of appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court gives no authority to the Assessing Officer to negate, disobey and disrespect to the orders of the higher authorities in the very same case. We may further notice that even after decision of CIT(A) in favour of assessee, the concerned CIT-Administration has given approval for filing the second round of appeal in the same case ignoring and in complete disregard and disobedience to the orders of the Tribunal as well as of the Hon’ble High Court vide which the issue in dispute has already been settled. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in a very recent case “CIT vs. Sairang Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.” in ITA No.2603 of 2011 decided on 28.04.14 has strongly discouraged the attitude of the authorities in filing the appeals without application of mind resulting in the pendency of the frivolous appeals before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court has strongly disapproved the irresponsible attitude of the officers in not applying their mind while approving for the filing of the appeals, which benefits no one and rather defeats larger public interest. The Hon’ble High Court taking strong note of such an act has imposed cost of Rs.50,000/- upon the Revenue. In another case “CIT vs. M/s. Kishan Ratilal Choksey Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd.” in ITA No.1001 of 2011 decided on 17th April, 2014 the Hon’ble High Court strongly discouraged the attitude of the Revenue for filing appeals on the issues which have already been settled and decided in the appeals pertaining to prior assessment years in the case of the very assessee. The Hon’ble High Court observed that it was a gross abuse of process of law and imposed Rs.1,00,000/- as cost. However, later on the assurance of the ld. counsel of the Revenue that hereafter the judicial orders and directions would be abided by in all matters and appropriate averments will be made to the effect that the order of the Tribunal for prior assessment years in the case of very assessee have been challenged or decided and the outcome of the decision thereof also will also be indicated. The Hon’ble High Court upon the such assurance of the ld. counsel of the Revenue re-called the direction to pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “UOI and Others vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation” AIR 1992 SC 711 has categorically held that the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not “acceptable” to the department-in itself is an objectionable phrase and is not a ground for not following the same unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. Since the present is a case not only of a gross abuse of process of law but also a case of willful disobedience and disregard of the orders of the higher authorities as well as of the acts which tends to lower down the authority of the higher court, hence we direct the concerned Assessing Officer as well as the concerned CIT-Administration who accorded permission to file the present appeal to appear in person and explain their position as to why appropriate course of action be not taken against them including awarding of exemplary costs against them and also why a reference should not be sent to the Hon’ble High Court against them under the contempt of court’s Act. To come up for the appearance of the concerned officials on 27.06.14.”
6. Thereafter, the concerned officials namely Sh. Omanakuttan (the then Assessing Officer) and Sh. V. Anandrajan [the then CIT (central) Pune ] appeared and submitted their written apologies vide letters dated 4.7.2014 and 2.7.2014 respectively and vide further letter of Sh. V. Ananandrajan dated 7.7.2014. The said officials vide their letters have submitted that there was no intention to disrespect or disobey the orders of higher judicial authorities and further that the additions/approval for filing the appeal were made on the basis of suggestions, directions and recommendations of other concerned officials for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Revenue and to maintain the consistency in the stand of the Revenue and keep the issue alive. In view of the submissions made by the above named officials, we feel that it will not be proper to proceed further against them as it was not only their decision, but it was the overall opinion of the team of officials to act in the above stated manner and also in view of their submission that there was no intention to disobey and disrespect the orders of their higher judicial authorities.
7. However we deem it necessary to point out here that once an issue is adjudicated and settled by the higher judicial authority, it is not open to the lower income tax authorities to reopen, make assessment or reassessment on the basis of same facts and circumstances and in the absence any incriminating or new material, information or evidence or of a contrary decision of superior judicial authority in order of hierarchy. If the Revenue officials choose to do so, then it is to be treated as not only the misuse but also abuse of their authority and in such an event defenses like protecting the interest of Revenue, keeping the issue alive etc. will not be sufficient to absolve them of the likely penal consequences against them. It reminds us of another case titled as “ITO V/s M/s. Deepa Restaurant & Bar P. Ltd.,” ITA No.1336/M/2012 decided on 05.02.2014. In the said case the assessee had disputed the legality of the notice issued by the AO u/s 143(2) of the act. The Tribunal had upheld the order of the CIT(A) vide which he had annulled the assessment made by the AO u/s 143(3) by holding that the notice issued by the AO under section 143(2) was not in time. However, the AO thereafter observed that since the assessment in this case had been annulled on the legality of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and the case had not been heard on merits at any of the stage including appellate proceedings, hence, there was a reason to believe that the income assessed in this case had escaped and therefore he reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The matter again travelled to the Tribunal. The Tribunal while adjudicating the issue in para 5 of the said order observed as under:
“5. We have heard the ld. representatives of both the parties and have also gone through the records.
It may be observed from the facts of the case that the AO had reopened the assessment only on the ground that the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was set aside by the higher authorities. In our view, that itself cannot be a ground for reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act. Such an action cannot be allowed under the law as it may amount to defeating the one statutory provision in the garb of acting under the other provision of the statute. Once the assessment under section 143(3) has been annulled by the higher authorities, reopening under section 147 on that very ground would mean nothing else, but the abuse of process of law. While holding so, we do not mean that the reopening cannot be done in any case where the assessment has been annulled under section 143(3). The proposition which we wish to point out is that the annulment of assessment done under section 143(3) by the higher judicial authorities, itself, cannot be a ground for reopening. If the AO comes into the knowledge of any new material from which he has reason to believe that certain income of the assessee has escaped assessment, he can reopen the assessment.”
8. In the facts of the present case, if such an act of making additions u/s 153A on the alleged ground of maintaining consistency in the stand of the Revenue and for keeping the issue alive, is allowed or not condemned, it may lead continuous harassment of assessee and never ending litigation on the same issue, such as, if the said additions are deleted by the higher judicial authorities even up to the level of Apex Court, the AO still would reopen the assessment and make additions on the same issue and on the basis of same facts u/s 147 of the Act. If the further appeals also meet the same fate of setting aside of such additions, then the ld. Commissioner would step into to make the same additions on the same issue again, by way of invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act and so on. In such circumstances, there will not be any end to litigation on the same issue in the case and also to the harassment, loss and agony of the assessee. No doubt, under the Income Tax Act, vast powers have been given to the Revenue Officers to detect the escapement of income required to be taxed and to reopen or make assessments or reassessments, but such powers are required to be used in a legal manner with due diligence in appropriate cases. In their zeal to protect the interest of the department, the officers should not cross the “Laxman Rekha’ which we here mean the line of limit of their legal jurisdiction; doing so may not only prove to be detrimental to the interest of the Revenue but also to them personally.
10. Coming back to the merits of the present case, we hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO u/s 153A. We hold accordingly. However before parting with the order, we direct the registry to send a copy of the order to the Chairman of the CBDT so that the necessary instructions may be issued to the Income Tax officers/Commissioners in this regard and in future due care be taken, not to disrespect or disobey the orders of the higher judicial authorities and also not to file frivolous appeals.
11. In the result, subject to our above observations, the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed.
