# M/S Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax,Meerut &Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 492
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-14
- **Case number:** INCOME TAX APPEAL No.223 of 2013
- **Bench:** Bharati Sapru, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-meerut-roller-flour-mills-pvt-ltd-v-commissioner-of-income-tax-meerut-anr-44500
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Income Tax Act, 1961: 142(1), 143(1),
143(3), 260A, 263: Mere non-discussion
and non-mentioning about the reply in
the order-no assumption of order being
erroneous.
1 All. M/S Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Meert & Anr. 493
CIT while exercising power u/s 263 partly
accepted the objection of the assessee and for
certain details relegated the case back to the
assessing officer. Tribunal dismissed the
appeal. Allowing the appeal, held:-Assessment
order cannot be called as erroneous, if it was
passed after issuing notice and raising certain
queries, to the assessee, which were answered to
the satisfaction of assessing authority. (Para 16)

Mere
non-discussion
and
non-mentioning
about the reply in the order of the assessing
authority, or merely because the order of the
assessing authority is not lengthy, does not
lead to an assumption that the order has been
passed without application of mind and the
order is erroneous and prejudicial to the
interest of the revenue. (Para 19, 20)

Precedent followed: -

## Text

492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976,
then, the finding recorded by by AO as
well as the first appellate authority that
the assessee was in the business of
potatoes and the addition so made by the
Assessing Officer was merely on the basis
of presumption and assumption and
without any material on record.

23. The Tribunal has also recorded a
categorical finding that no evidence of
purchase,
sales
or
unaccounted
stock
belonging to the assessee during the course of
search or survey was found or established,
thus, there was no justification for the
authorities to make or confirm the addition of
the said amount. There is no doubt that the
business of running a cold storage is governed
by the U.P. Act of 1976 and it is only after the
grant of licence by the licencing authority that
a cold storage can run according to the terms
and conditions of the licence. Any violation of
the terms of licence has penal consequences as
provided under Section 37 and 38 of the Act,
for which the Magistrate of Ist Class is
empowered to take cognizance of any offence
so made by the licence holder. As, in the case
in hand, during the search and survey in the
business premises of the assessee, no such
violation was found or recorded, nor any
notice was given or action was taken against
the asssessee, as is evident from the perusal of
the documents before us. Further, the counsel
for the Revenue also could not point out to
any such violation made by the assessee of the
U.P. Act of 1976.

24. Once it is established that the
assessee had not violated the terms of
licence, so granted by the licencing
authority,
merely
on
the
basis
of
presumption and assumption from any
documents or papers seized during search
and survey cannot be the basis for the
addition of such an amount.

25. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case and going
through the records of the case, we are of
the considered opinion that the Revenue
has failed to establish that the order of the
Tribunal is manifestly illegal and suffers
from error apparent on face of the record.
As the Tribunal being the last fact finding
court has categorically recorded finding
that the authorities below had wrongly
made the additions without any material
on
record
on
the
basis
of
mere
presumption and assumption.

26. The appeal is dismissed. The
question of law is, therefore, answered
against the Revenue and in favour of the
assessee.
--------

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

INCOME TAX APPEAL No.223 of 2013

M/S Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.
 ... Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax,Meerut
&Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Suyash Agarwal. Sri Rakesh Ranjan
Agarwal.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., I.T., Income Tax, Sri Gaurav Mahajan.

A. Income Tax Act, 1961: 142(1), 143(1),
143(3), 260A, 263: Mere non-discussion
and non-mentioning about the reply in
the order-no assumption of order being
erroneous.
1 All. M/S Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Meert & Anr. 493
CIT while exercising power u/s 263 partly
accepted the objection of the assessee and for
certain details relegated the case back to the
assessing officer. Tribunal dismissed the
appeal. Allowing the appeal, held:-Assessment
order cannot be called as erroneous, if it was
passed after issuing notice and raising certain
queries, to the assessee, which were answered to
the satisfaction of assessing authority. (Para 16)

Mere
non-discussion
and
non-mentioning
about the reply in the order of the assessing
authority, or merely because the order of the
assessing authority is not lengthy, does not
lead to an assumption that the order has been
passed without application of mind and the
order is erroneous and prejudicial to the
interest of the revenue. (Para 19, 20)

Precedent followed: -

1. CIT Vs. Krishan Capbox Ltd., (2015) (Para
9, 19)

2. CIT Vs. Mahendra Kumar Bansal (Para 10,
20)

3. CIT Vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust,
(Para 10, 20)
Precedent distinguished: -
1. Malabar Industrial Company Vs. CIT, (Para
8, 12, 14)

2. CIT Vs. Anand Kumar Jain, (Para 12, 16)

3. Swarup Vegetable Products Vs. CIT, (Para
12, 17)

4. CIT Vs. Bhagwan Das, (Para 12, 18)
Appeal against order dated 02.04.2013
by ITAT, Delhi for AY 2007-08 (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal J.)

1. This appeal under Section 260 A
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
called as 'Act') has been filed assailing the
order passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Delhi Bench "E" New Delhi
dated 02.04.2013 and Revisional order
dated
09.02.2012,
passed
by
Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut,
under Section 263 of the Act.

2. The appeal was admitted on
06.09.2013 on the following questions of
law:-

"I. Whether on the facts and
circumstances of the case the ITAT
rightly held that the Commissioner of
Income
Tax,
Meerut
has
correctly
assumed jurisdiction under Section 263,
in revising the assessment order dated
15.12.2009 passed under Section 143(3)
of the Act for A.Y. 2007-08?

II. Whether the ITAT is right in
upholding the order of CIT passed under
Section 263 which has been passed
without controverting the appellant's
explanation/submissions
dated
15.10.2009, 05.11.2009 and 04.12.2009
before the A.O. In compliance of his
queries in relation to verification of loan
creditors and trade creditors?"

3. The case relates to the assessment
year 2007-2008. The assessee filed return
of income on 31.10.2007 declaring
income of Rs. 10,59,560/-. The said return
was processed under Section 143(1) of the
Act. Case of the assessee was selected for
scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2)
of the Act was issued by the Assessing
Officer on 26.09.2008, further notice
under Section 142(1), dated 25.03.2009,
along with questionnaire raising 28
queries was issued and served on the
assessee. The assessee on 15.10.2009
filed his replies to the queries raised in
notice dated 25.03.2009. It appears that
Assessing Officer further required the
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
assessee to furnish explanation, which
was submitted by the assessee in form of
written submission on 05.11.2009. On
15.12.2009, order under Section 143(2) of
the Act was passed by the Assessing
Officer, accepting the return of income of
Rs.10,59,560/-.

4. Commissioner Income Tax,
Meerut exercising power under Section
263 of the Act on 27.10.2010 issued
notice to the assessee, a detailed objection
in form of written submission was
submitted by the assessee before him on
18.10.2011, stating that all the the details
and documentary evidence in regard to
the investment in share capital, unsecured
loans,
creditors
and
expenses
was
submitted before the Assessing Officer by
the assessee in reply to the 28 queries
raised by the Assessing Officer.

5. On 09.02.2012, the Commissioner
Income Tax, Meerut passed an order, partly
accepting the objection of the assessee as far
as the investment in share capital was
concerned but, as regards unsecured loans
and creditors were concerned, the case of the
assessee was relegated back to the Assessing
Officer directing him to examine, call for
requisite details, confirmations and examine
them properly after affording assessee proper
and reasonable opportunity to explain its case
and verify the details with the help of
documentary evidence.

6. The order passed by the
Commissioner Income Tax, Meerut under
Section 263 of the Act was challenged by
the assessee before the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called
'ITAT'). The ITAT dismissed the appeal
of the assessee upholding the order passed
by the Commissioner of Income Tax,
Meerut.

7. Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel
appearing
for
the
assessee/
appellant
submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider
that the Commissioner Income Tax was not
justified in invoking the provisions of
Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, as the
order passed by the Assessing Officer was
neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the
interest of the revenue. It was further
contended that after the case of the appellant
was selected for scrutiny, the Assessing
Officer had issued notice under Section
143(2) of the Act, raising 28 queries which
were in regard to the investment in share
capital, unsecured loans, creditors and
expenses, which was replied by the assessee,
furnishing the entire details along with the
documentary evidence. It was also submitted
that details of all unsecured loans was
furnished to the Assessing Officer along with
their PAN numbers and other details as
required.

8. He further submitted that the
Commissioner
Income
Tax
while
exercising power under Section 263 as
well as the ITAT dismissing the appeal
had wrongly applied the law laid down by
the Apex Court in case of Malabar
Industrial Company vs. CIT (2000) 109
Taxman 66 (SC).

9. The second limb of argument of
the counsel for the assessee is that mere
non-discussion and non-mentioning about
the reply to the queries submitted by the
assessee cannot lead to an assumption by
the CIT as well as ITAT that Assessing
Officer has not applied his mind, he relied
upon the decision in case of CIT vs.
Krishan Capbox Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 310
(Allahabad).

10. It was further contended that the
queries
raised
during
assessment
1 All. M/S Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Meert & Anr. 495
proceedings and the same not having been
dealt in the assessment order would not
lead to the conclusion that no enquiry was
made and the Assessing Officer has not
applied his mind. Reliance has been
placed on the decision of CIT vs.
Mahendra Kumar Bansal (2008) 297
ITR 99 (Allahabad). Another decision
which has been relied on by the counsel
for the assessee is in the case of CIT vs.
Goyal Private Family Specific Trust
(1988) 171 ITR 698 (Allahabad).

11. Per contra, Sri Gaurav Mahajan,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
Department submitted that the assessment
order dated 15.12.2009 is totally silent in
respect of unsecured loans and creditors
and the Assessing Officer was bound to
examine
the
identity
of
creditors,
creditworthiness
of
creditors
and
genuineness of the transactions before any
loan or cash credit is accepted.

12. He further contended that the
Commissioner of Income Tax had rightly
exercised his power mandated, under
Section 263 and, it was only after giving
due opportunity of hearing to the assessee
that the assessment order was set aside to
certain extent with direction to the
Assessing Officer to verify the details. Sri
Mahajan
lastly
submitted
that
the
Tribunal, being the last fact finding
Authority, and it was after appreciating
the evidence and material on record, came
to the conclusion that the matter required
no interference in the order passed under
Section 263 of the Act. He has relied
upon the decision in cases of CIT vs.
Anand Kumar Jain (2015) 231 Taxman
534 (Allahabad), Malabar Industrial
Company vs. CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 66
(SC), Swarup Vegetable Products vs.
CIT (1991) 54 Taxman 175 (Allahabad)
and CIT vs. Bhagwan Das (2005) 142
Taxman 1 (Allahabad).

13. We have heard counsel for the
parties and perused the material on
record.

14. As it is undisputed, that
Assessing Officer after the case was
selected for scrutiny had issued notice
under Section 143(2) of the Act and also
notice under Section 142(1) with 28
queries to the assessee, which was replied
by him along with the documentary
evidence, and the Assessing Officer being
satisfied passed the order under Section
143(3) of the Act on 15.12.2009. The CIT
while exercising power under Section 263
of the Act, partially accepted the reply
submitted by the assessee as regards the
investment in share capital holding that
the outstanding unsecured loans of six
persons to be adjusted against the share
application money account, but as regards
the unsecured loans and creditors, it
directed the Assessing Officer to examine,
call for requisite details, confirmations
and examine them properly and relegated
the matter back to him. While passing the
said order the CIT relied upon the
decision of the Apex Court in case of
Malabar
Industrial
Company
Ltd.
(supra). Paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10
of the said judgment are extracted
hereinasunder:-

"6. A bare reading of this
provision makes it clear that the prerequisite to exercise of jurisdiction by the
Commissioner suo moto under it, is that
the order of the ITO is erroneous insofar
as it is prejudicial to the interests of the
revenue. The Commissioner has to be
satisfied with twin conditions, namely, (i).
the order of the Assessing Officer sought
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is
prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
If one of them is absent - if the order of
the ITO is erroneous but is not prejudicial
to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but
is prejudicial to the revenue- recourse
cannot be had to Section 263(1).

7. There can be no doubt that
the provision cannot be invoked to correct
each and every type of mistake or error
committed by the Assessing Officer; it is
only when an order is erroneous that the
section will be attracted. An incorrect
assumption of facts or an incorrect
application of law will satisfy the
requirement of the order being erroneous.
In the same category fall orders passed
without applying the principles of natural
justice or without application of mind.

The phrase 'prejudicial to the
interests of the revenue' is not an
expression of art and is not defined in the
Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning,
it is of wide import and is not confined to
loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in
Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain
[1957] 31 ITR 872,the High Court of
Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai
[1975] 98 ITR 422, the High Court of
Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.
[1993] 203 ITR 208and the High Court of
Gujarat inCIT v. Smt. Minalben S.
Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81/ 79 Taxman
184 treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the
interests of the revenue.

8. Mr. Abraham relied on the
judgment of the Division Bench of the
High Court of Madras inVenkatakrishna
Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 129
interpreting 'prejudicial to the interests of
the revenue'. The High Court held, "In
this context, it must be regarded as
involving a conception of acts or orders
which
are
subversive
of
the
administration of revenue. There must be
some grievous error in the Order passed
by the ITO, which might set a bad trend
or pattern for similar assessments, which
on abroad reckoning, the Commissioner
might think to be prejudicial to the
interests of Revenue Administration". In
our view, this interpretation is too narrow
to merit acceptance. The scheme of the
Act is to levy and collect tax in
accordance with the provisions of the Act
and this task is entrusted to the revenue. If
due to an erroneous order of the ITO, the
revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by
a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to
the interests of the revenue.

9. The phrase 'prejudicial to the
interests of the revenue' has to be read in
conjunction with an erroneous order passed
by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of
revenue as a consequence of an order of
Assessing Officer cannot be treated as
prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for
example, when an ITO adopted one of the
courses permissible in law and it has resulted
in loss of revenue; or where two views are
possible and the ITO has taken one view with
which the Commissioner does not agree, it
cannot be treated as an erroneous order
prejudicial to the interests of the revenue
unless the view taken by the ITO is
unsustainable in law. It has been held by this
Court that where a sum not earned by a person
is assessed as income in his hands on his so
offering, the order passed by the Assessing
Officer accepting the same as such will be
erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the
revenue- Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT
[1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara
Devi Aggarwal v. CIT, [1973] 88 ITR 323
(SC).

10. In the instant case, the
Commissioner noted that the ITO passed
the order of nil assessment without
application of mind. Indeed, the High
Court recorded the finding that the ITO
1 All. M/S Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Meert & Anr. 497
failed to apply his mind to the case in all
perspective and the order passed by him
was erroneous. It appears that the
resolution passed by the board of the
appellant- company was not placed before
the Assessing Officer. Thus, there was no
material to support the claim of the appellant
that
the
said
amount
represented
compensation for loss of agricultural income.
He accepted the entry in the statement of the
account filed by the appellant in the absence
of any supporting material and without
making any inquiry. On these facts, the
conclusion that the order of the ITO was
erroneous is irresistible. We are, therefore, of
the opinion that the High Court has rightly
held that the exercise of the jurisdiction by the
Commissioner under Section 263(1) was
justified."

15. In the present case, the CIT himself
while relying upon the reply submitted by
the assessee had partially accepted the claim
as far as investment in share capital was
concerned but it did not accept the
documentary evidence and reply submitted
by the assessee before the Assessing Officer
as far as unsecured loans and creditors are
concerned. The reliance placed by the
counsel for the Department on the aforesaid
judgment is of no help to him as he has failed
to point out how the order of the Assessing
Officer was erroneous insofar as it is
prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
While the counsel for the assessee relying
upon Para No. 10 of the said judgment
submitted that the order passed by the
assessing
authority
was
not
without
application of mind, as the same was passed
after the replying upon the documentary
evidence submitted by the assessee.

16. Similarly, this Court in case of
Anand
Kumar
Jain
(supra)
while
interpreting the language of Section 263
had held that where the Assessing Officer
passes an order without application of
mind or an incorrect statement of fact or
incorrect application of law, then the
order so passed would be erroneous. But
in the present case, Assessing Officer
after issuing notice and raising certain
queries to the assessee passed the
assessment order which cannot be called
as erroneous.

17. Reliance has also been placed on
the judgment of Swarup Vegetable
Products (supra), wherein this Court
while dealing with a case, where assessee
received refund of excise duty and placed
the said amount in suspense account and
not in profit and loss account and claimed
that this amount should not be included in
his income, and stated before the
Assessing Officer that large part of this
amount was claimed by one Sugar Mill
who had filed a suit and also a writ
petition claiming the said amount and as
such, this amount should not be included
in his taxable income. This claim was
accepted by the ITO. However, when the
matter
came
to
the
notice
of
Commissioner, he exercising power under
Section 263 held that the ITO had not
made proper inquiries before accepting
the claim of assessee, and the assessment
order was set aside and fresh assessment
was directed. This Court refused to
interfere
in
the
findings
of
the
Commissioner as the order of the ITO
was prejudicial to the revenue.

18. Similarly, the case relied upon by the
Department in case of Bhagwan Das (supra)
also is not applicable in the present case, as in the
case in hand the Assessing Officer after duly
putting the assessee under notice and requiring
him to produce all the relevant documents had
passed the assessment order.
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. The argument of the counsel for
the assessee that mere non-discussion and
non-mentioning about the reply in the
order of the assessing authority would not
lead to an assumption that there was no
application of mind and the order is
erroneous. In Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd.
(supra), this Court held as under:-

9. The Tribunal further considered
the question whether discussion of queries and
reply received from assessee, in assessment
order, is necessary or not. Relying on two
judgments of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs.
Vikash Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537/ [2010]
194 Taxman 57 and CIT v. Vodafone Essar
South Ltd. [2012] 28 taxmann.com 273/
[2013] 212 Taxman 184 (Delhi), it held that
once inquiry was made, a mere non discussion
or non- mention thereof in assessment order
cannot lead to assumption that Assessing
Officer did not apply his mind or that he has
not made inquiry on the subject and this
would
not
justify
interference
by
Commissioner by issuing notice under
Section 263 of the Act.

10. In Vikash Polymers (supra)
relevant part of the observations in this
regard read as under (page 548 of 341
ITR):

"This is for the reason that if a
query was raised during the course of scrutiny
by the Assessing Officer, which was
answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing
Officer, but neither the query nor the answer
was reflected in the assessment order, that
would not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that
the order of the Assessing Officer called for
interference and revision."

11.
Further,
the
relevant
observation made in Vodafone Essar
South Ltd. (supra) in this regard reads as
under (page 531 of 1 ITR-OL):

"The lack of any discussion on
this cannot lead to the assumption that the
Assessing Officer did not apply his
mind."

12. Learned counsel for the
Department could not place any other
authority before this Court wherein any
otherwise view has been taken. On the
contrary, learned counsel for assessee has
placed before us a decision of Bombay
High Court in Income Tax Appeal
No.296 of 2013 (CIT v. Fine Jewellery
(India) Ltd.) [2015] 372 ITR 303/230
Taxman
641/55
taxmann.xom
514
(Bom.) decided on February 3, 2015,
wherein
also
Bombay
High
Court,
following its earlier decision in Idea
Cellular Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT [2008] 301 ITR
407 (Bom.) has taken a similar view and
said as under (page 307 of 372 ITR):

"......if a query is raised during
assessment proceedings and responded to
by the assessee, the mere fact that it is not
dealt with in the Assessment Order would
not lead to a conclusion that no mind had
been applied to it."

20. In case of Mahendra Kumar
Bansal (supra), this Court held that
merely because the order of the ITO is not
lengthy, it would not establish that the
assessment order passed under Section
143(3) of the Act is erroneous and
prejudicial to the intrest of the revenue.
Relevant Para Nos. 11,12 and 14 are
extracted hereinasunder:-

"11. In the case of Goyal
Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171
ITR 698, this court has held that the order
of the Income-tax Officer may be brief
and cryptic, but that by itself is not
sufficient reason to brand the assessment
order as erroneous and prejudicial to the
interests of the Revenue and it was for the
Commissioner to point out as to what
error was committed by the Income-tax
1 All. Jugender Singh Yadav, Agra Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra & Anr. 499
Officer
in
having
reached
to
its
conclusion and in the absence of which
proceedings under Section 263 of the Act
is not warranted.

12. In the case of Belal Nisa
[1988] 171 ITR 643 the Patna High Court has
held that where the Income-tax Officer had
not carried out the necessary enquiry enjoined
by
section
143(1)
of
the
Act
the
Commissioner is within his power in taking
action in terms of Section 263(1) of the Act.
Similar view has been taken in by the Patna
High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya
Devi [1988] 171 ITR 686.

14. As held by this Court in the case
of Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988]
171 ITR 698, we are of the considered opinion
that merely because the Income- tax Officer
had not written lengthy order it would not
establish that the assessment order passed
under Section 143(3)/148 of the Act is
erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the
Revenue without bringing on record specific
instances, which in the present case, the
Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to do."

21. It is clear that after the notice
was issued by the Assessing Officer
raising 28 queries from the assessee,
which was also replied by him along with
the documentary evidence in regard to
each of the query, thus the assessment
order passed under Section 143(3) of the
Act would not render the same as
erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of
Revenue,
unless
the
Commissioner
exercising power under Section 263
brings on record to show that the order of
the Assessing Officer is erroneous, as the
same was passed without application of
mind or the Assessing Officer had made
an incorrect assessment of fact or
incorrect application of law, but the same
not being the case, and the CIT relying
upon the reply and the documentary
evidence submitted by the assessee
granted partial relief, as such the order
dated 09.02.2012 passed under Section
263 relegating back the matter to the
Assessing Officer as regards unsecured
loans and creditors is unsustainable.

22. Having examined the matter at
length on facts as well as on the law, we
are of the considered opinion that in the
present case, it is abundantly clear that the
order passed by the Assessing Officer was
neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the
interest of the Revenue.

23. In view of the above, the order dated
02.04.2013 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "E" New
Delhi and revisional order dated 09.02.2012
passed by Commissioner Income Tax, Meerut
under Section 263 are set aside.

24 . The question of law is therefore
answered in favour of the assessee and
against the Revenue. The appeal stands
allowed.

25. However no order as to costs.
----------

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

INCOME TAX APPEAL No.281 of 2017

Jugender Singh Yadav, Agra ... Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
,Agra &Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Suyash Agarwal.