B. Suryanarayana Raju, Hyderabad V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

CO 36/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3990 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2018
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV BENJWAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Salary income; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1553/HYD/2017 & C.O NO.36/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1) HYDERABAD. VS. SHRI B. SURYANARAYANA RAJU, HYDERABAD. PAN ACEPB281IN APPLICANT / CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJEEV BENJWAL ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.C. DEVDAS DATE OF HEARING : 25-07-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-07-2018 ORDER PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2005-06 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-12, HYDERABAD DATED 02.06.2017, WHILE THE C.O IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT AT THE STAGE OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDING, ALL THAT REQUIRED IS THE REASON TO BELIEVE AND NOT AN ESTABLISHED FACT OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME?' 2. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE SPIRIT OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT LTD (2007) 291 ITR 500 WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE WORD 'REASON' IN THE PHRASE 'REASON TO BELIEVE' WOULD MEAN CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION TO KNOW OR SUPPOSE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THE EXPRESSION CANNOT 2 ITA.NO. 1553/HYD/2017 & C.O NO. 36/HYD/2018 SHRI B. SUBBARAJU, HYDERABAD. MEAN THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE FINALLY ASCERTAINED THE FACT, LEGAL EVIDENCE OR CONCLUSION AND THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS NOT RELEVANT?' 3. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT NO REGULAR SCRUTINY U/S.143(3) WAS MADE IN THE CASE AND THEREFORE THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS/CHANGE OF OPINION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE?' 4. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASES WHERE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) WHEREAS IN THIS CASE THE NO SUCH ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3)? 5. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND THAT THE AO HAD NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE REVELATIONS IN THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF SRI RAMALINGA RAJU AND THE FACTS OF FUDGING OF ACCOUNTS, VARIATIONS IN THE QUANTUM OF INCOME AND ASSETS/LIABILITIES OF M/S. SCSL AND THE FRONT COMPANIES AS REVEALED IN THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT WHICH CAME TO LIGHT IN THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY INVESTIGATION AGENCIES LIKE CBI, SFIO AND ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, WAS AVAILABLE TO THE AO WHILE INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.147?' 6. THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO LIVE-LINK WITH THE REASONS RECORDED AND THE ADDITIONS MADE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AS PER THE SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT THERE WAS A MISMATCH BETWEEN THE CLOSING CAPITAL IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND THE OPENING CAPITAL IN THE CURRENT YEAR WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RECONCILE RESULTING IN LIVE-LINK BETWEEN THE REASONS RECORDED AND THE OUTCOME OF THE RE-OPENED PROCEEDINGS. 7. THE ID CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT COMING OF ALL THE RELATED COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS OF MIS SAT YAM GROUP UNDER THE CLOUD, IS A FACT THAT CANNOT BE BRUSHED UNDER THE CARPET AND THE LEGALITY OF REOPENING CANNOT BE EXAMINED IN ISOLATION OF THIS VITAL BACKGROUND. 8. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN LAW IN QUASHING THE REOPENING WHEN THE AO HAD VALIDLY REOPENED THE CASE FOR THE REASONS RECORDED BY HIM AND ALSO AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE OUTCOME OF THE REOPENED PROCEEDINGS?' 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD ANY OTHER GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3 ITA.NO. 1553/HYD/2017 & C.O NO. 36/HYD/2018 SHRI B. SUBBARAJU, HYDERABAD. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM SALARY, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER SOURCES, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2005-06 ON 31.07.2005 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 40,63,020/-. THE RETURN WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE IT ACT ON 28.11.2005. 3. ON 07.01.2009, SHRI B. RAMALINGA RAJU, EX-CHAIRMAN OF M/S SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD., (M/S SCSL) IN HIS LETTER SENT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WITH A COPY MARKED TO SEBI, HAS STATED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY WERE FORGED FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. CONSEQUENT THERETO, THE INVESTIGATION AGENCIES LIKE THE CBI, SFIO AND ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ETC., CONDUCTED INVESTIGATIONS AND IT CAME TO LIGHT THAT SHRI B. RAMALINGA RAJU AND HIS BROTHERS (ASSESSEE BEING ONE OF THEM) AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE FLOATED NUMEROUS FRONT COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROUTING THE FUNDS AND TO ACQUIRE VAST TRACTS OF LAND IN AND AROUND HYDERABAD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO A CO-ACCUSED IN THE SATYAM SCAM AS PER THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY CBI ON 07.04.2009, THE A.O ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT AND IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.03.2012 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 40,63,020/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED HIS OBJECTIONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE A.O, HOWEVER, REJECTED THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RECOMPUTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 89,70,973/- MAKING CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES AND ADDITIONS. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) CHALLENGING 4 ITA.NO. 1553/HYD/2017 & C.O NO. 36/HYD/2018 SHRI B. SUBBARAJU, HYDERABAD. BOTH THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS. 4. THE CIT(A), BY FOLLOWING THE ITAT ORDER IN THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEES GROUP COMPANIES, HELD THAT THE REOPENING U/S 147 OF THE IT ACT IS INVALID AS THE AO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE & M/S SCSL AND THAT THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE REASONS RECORDED AND THE ADDITIONS MADE. THUS, THE CIT(A) QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WHILE THE LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(1) OF THE IT ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS U/S 147 OF THE IT ACT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 4 YEARS THE A.O HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT THE NEXUS BETWEEN M/S SCSL AND THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSEE AND THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAMALINGA RAJU. HE SUBMITTED THAT EXCEPT FOR THE STATEMENT OF SHRI B. RAMALINGA RAJU, THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE A.O COULD COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT EVEN WHERE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(1) OF THE IT ACT, THE A.O IS REQUIRED TO RECORD REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND THERE HAS TO BE LIVE LINK BETWEEN SUCH REASONS AND THE ADDITIONS MADE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (A) CIT VS. ORIENT CRAFT LTD., 354 ITR 536 (DEL). (B) RATNA TRAYI REALITY SERVICES VS. ITO, 2013, 356 ITR 493 (GUJ) 5 ITA.NO. 1553/HYD/2017 & C.O NO. 36/HYD/2018 SHRI B. SUBBARAJU, HYDERABAD. (C) CIT VS. ATHUL KUMAR SWAMY, 2014 362 ITR 693 (DEL) 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(1) OF THE IT ACT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED AND THERE WAS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL BEFORE THE A.O FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME EXCEPT FOR THE ADMISSION OF SHRI B. RAMALINGA RAJU THAT THERE WAS FUDGING OF ACCOUNTS IN THE CASE OF M/S SATYAM COMPUTERS SERVICE LTD., AS WELL AS THE GROUP COMPANIES AS SEEN FROM THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. WE FIND THAT THE ITAT, IN THE GROUP CASES HAD CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AND HAS HELD THE REASSESSMENTS TO BE INVALID. FURTHER, IN THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS HAVE HELD THAT EVEN FOR REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(1) OF THE IT AC, THE A.O HAS TO HAVE TANGIBLE MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION SUBSEQUENT TO THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) OF THE I.T ACT BEFORE RECORDING REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ORIENT CRAFT LTD., (CITED SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: HELD, DISMISSING HE APPEAL, THAT THE REASONS DISCLOSED THAT THE A.O REACHED THE BELIEF THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON GOING THROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER HE ACCEPTED THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 143(1) WITHOUT SCRUTINY, AND NOTHING MORE. THIS WAS NOTHING BUT A REVIEW OF THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS AND AN ABUSE OF POWER BY THE A.O. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE A.O DID CONFIRM THE APPREHENSION ABOUT THE HARM THAT A LESS STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEF VIS--VIS AN INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(1) COULD CAUSE TO THE TAX REGIME. THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE REASONS RECORDED TO SHOW THAT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAD COME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE A.O SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF THE INTIMATION. THE NOTICE REFLECTED AN ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 147. 6 ITA.NO. 1553/HYD/2017 & C.O NO. 36/HYD/2018 SHRI B. SUBBARAJU, HYDERABAD. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RATNA TRAYI REALITY SERVICE PVT LTD., VS. ITO HAS HELD AS UNDER: HAVING THUS HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND HAVING PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, WE NEED TO EXAMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE FOR REOPENING, IN THE CONTEXT OF REASONS RECORDED, OF COURSE, BEARING IN MIND THAT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, PREVIOUSLY, NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED. IT IS OF COURSE TRUE THAT IN SUCH CASES, REVENUE WOULD ENJOY FAR GREATER LATITUDE TO REOPEN AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REASON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SO MUCH IS CLEARLY EMERGING FROM THE DECISIONS OF APEX COURT IN CASE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD. REPORTED IN [2007] ITR 500 (SC). HOWEVER, IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT MERELY BECAUSE AN ASSESSMENT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY FRAMED AFTER SCRUTINY, WOULD NOT GIVE UNLIMITED RIGHT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN BY MERELY ISSUING A NOTICE WITHOUT VALID REASONS. IN OTHER WORDS, VALIDITY OF REASON PERMITTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FORM A BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WOULD BE A RELEVANT CONSIDERATION EVEN IN CASES, WHERE THE COURT IS EXAMINING CHALLENGE TO A NOTICE FOR REOPENING WHERE NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS PREVIOUSLY FRAMED. DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN CASE OF INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. M. GOPALAN, DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN A JUDGEMENT DATED 06.08.2012 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 858 OF 2006 EXAMINED THE ASSESSEE S FOLLOWING CONTENTIONS: THIS BRINGS US TO THE SECOND LIMB OF THE PETITIONER'S CHALLENGE NAMELY, THAT THE POWER UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE EXERCISED TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS BECOME TIME BARRED AND FURTHER THAT IN ANY CASE, REASONS RECORDED WOULD NOT PERMIT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CONTEXT, REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CASE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD. (SUPRA) AND OTHER JUDGEMENTS, FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE: IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY TRUE THAT PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES A TIME LIMIT WITHIN WHICH SUCH NOTICE COULD BE ISSUED. IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT SUCH NOTICE IS MANDATORY AND IN ABSENCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE TIME PERMITTED, SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) CANNOT BE FRAMED. HOWEVER, MERELY BECAUSE NO SUCH NOTICE WAS ISSUED, TO CONTEND THAT THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED, IS NOT BACKED BY ANY STATUTORY PROVISIONS. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER DID NOT EVEN STRETCH HIS CONTENTION TO THAT EXTENT. THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AS WE UNDERSTAND IS THAT IN GUISE OF REOPENING OF AN ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER 7 ITA.NO. 1553/HYD/2017 & C.O NO. 36/HYD/2018 SHRI B. SUBBARAJU, HYDERABAD. CANNOT TRY TO SCRUTINIZE THE RETURN. THIS ASPECT SUBSTANTIALLY OVERLAPS WITH THE LATER CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT GERMANE AND WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT REOPENING. IT WOULD, THUS, EMERGE THAT EVEN IN CASE OF REOPENING OF AN ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT WITHOUT SCRUTINY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD HAVE POWER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT, PROVIDED HE HAD SOME TANGIBLE MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE COULD FORM A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD., (SUPRA) AND SEVERAL OTHER DECISIONS, SUCH REASON TO BELIEVE NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE A FIRM FINAL DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IF WE ACCEPT SUCH PROPOSITION, THE PETITIONER'S APPREHENSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD ARBITRARILY EXERCISE POWERS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT TO CIRCUMVENT THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS WHICH COULD NOT BE FRAMED IN VIEW OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) HAVING BECOME TIME BARRED, WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF. TO REITERATE, EVEN FOR REOPENING OF AN ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS ACCEPTED PREVIOUSLY UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT WITHOUT SCRUTINY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ATHUL KUMAR SWAMY HAS HELD AS UNDER: 5. AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES VALID 'REASONS TO BELIEVE' IS NO LONGER A MATTER OF DEBATE. SO LONG AS THE LAW DECLARED IN KELVINATOR (SUPRA) STANDS, A VALID REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE BASED ONLY ON TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE NOTE FORMING PART OF THE RETURN CLEARLY MENTIONED AND DESCRIBED THE NATURE OF THE RECEIPT UNDER A NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT. THE REASONS FOR THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 NOWHERE MENTIONED THAT THE REVENUE CAME UP WITH ANY OTHER FRESH MATERIAL WARRANTING REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT MERE CONCLUSION OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(1) IPSO FACTO DOES NOT BRING INVOCATION OF POWERS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE TRIBUNAL'S REASONS ARE JUSTIFIED AND DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 8 ITA.NO. 1553/HYD/2017 & C.O NO. 36/HYD/2018 SHRI B. SUBBARAJU, HYDERABAD. 6.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SRI RAMALINGA RAJU, WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHO HAS FOLLOWED THE ITAT ORDERS IN SIMILAR CASES FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS BUT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INVALID, THE ADJUDICATION OF THE C.O WOULD ONLY RESULT IN AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE AT THIS STAGE. THEREFORE, THE C.O OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 31 ST JULY, 2018 9 ITA.NO. 1553/HYD/2017 & C.O NO. 36/HYD/2018 SHRI B. SUBBARAJU, HYDERABAD. KRK 1) SRI B. SURYANARAYANA RAJU, H. NO. 1-123/A, SATYAM ENCLAVE, N.H-7, PET BASHEERABAD VILLAGE, HYDERABAD. 2) THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (1) HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A)-12, HYDERABAD 4) ADDL.CIT, RANGE-3, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE.