M/s. Chand Industry, Faridabad V. ITO, Faridabad

CO 84/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7711 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB SENIOR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Gift; Depreciation; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Notional interest; Tax effect; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 40(b); 234B; 147; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER CO NO.84/DEL/2016 (IN ITA NO.963/DEL./2016) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S. CHAND INDUSTRY, VS. ITO, WARD II (2), PLOT NO.7A, MARKET NO.1, FARIDABAD. NIIT, FARIDABAD. (PAN : AABFC8607Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAURAV ROHATGI, CA REVENUE BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.07.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 22.07.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : PRESENT CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE FILED IN ITA NO.963/D EL/2014 DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VID E ORDER DATED 24.10.2018, AVAILABLE ON THE FILE, WHEREBY APPEAL F ILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT AS PER C IRCULAR NO.3/2018 DATED 20.08.2018. HOWEVER, CROSS OBJECTIONS REMAIN ED PENDING AS ASSESSMENT RECORD WAS NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE BENC H. NOW, ASSESSMENT CO NO.84/DEL/2016 2 RECORD HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE B EING DISPOSED OFF VIDE THIS ORDER. 2. THE OBJECTOR, M/S. CHAND INDUSTRY, BY FILING THE PR ESENT CROSS OBJECTIONS CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DA TED 26.12.2012 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, INVOKIN G OF SEC. 147 AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS U/S. 48 CULMINATI NG INTO ASSTT. ORDER U/S. 147/144 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AS WELL AS ON MERITS. 2. THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147/148 ARE WITHOUT JU RISDICTION AND BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS O/S. 147 I 14 8 ARE BAD IN LAW SINCE THE LD. AO HAS ALREADY INITIATED PROCE EDINGS U/S. 154/155 ON THE SAME REASONS. 4. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE SALA RY PAID TO PARTNERS FOR RS.1,92,000/-. 5. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE NOTI ONAL INTEREST OF RS.2,85,360/- ON INVESTMENT IN HSIIDC PLOT. 6. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, NO NOTIONAL INTEREST CAN BE CALCULATED AND DISALLOWED ON THE OPENING BALANCE OF INVESTMENT IN HSIIDC PLOT. 7. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN LAW AS WELL ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,66,426/- BEING FREIGHT AND CAR TAGE EXPENSES FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS. 8. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN LAW AS WELL ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,76,121/- BEING CARTAGE INWARD EXPENSES FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS. CO NO.84/DEL/2016 3 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : INITIALLY, ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED IN THIS CASE UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( FOR SHORT THE ACT) VIDE ORDER DATED 13.12.2007 AT AN INCOME OF RS.13,7 9,270/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) NOTICED FROM T HE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 01.04.2004 INTER ALIA THAT THE AMOUNT OF SALA RY PAID TO THE PARTNER TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,92,000/- WAS NOT MENTIONED IN T HE SAID PARTNERSHIP DEED; THAT PLOT PURCHASED FROM HSIDC IN WHICH INVES TMENT OF RS.23,78,000/- WAS MADE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PUT TO USE THE ASSETS PURCHASED FROM BORROWED FUNDS, INTEREST ON T HE AFORESAID INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,85,360/- @ 12% PER A NNUM WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AND WAS REQUIRED TO BE CAPITALIZED; THAT NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING DEDUCTION OF TDS ON MAKING PAYMENT OF RENT, JOBWORK , FREIGHT AND CARTAGE, ETC. AND THEREBY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT A FTER RECORDING REASONS AND ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. DECLINING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS N O FAILURE ON HIS PART TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL NECESSARY FACTS FOR CO MPUTATION OF INCOME AND AS SUCH, REOPENING IS LEGALLY NOT SUSTAINABLE, AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.44,14,162/- AND THEREBY ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.57,93,430/-. 4. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, BOTH THE CO NO.84/DEL/2016 4 REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE HAVE COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS O BJECTIONS RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMI SSED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UP ON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE/CROSS OBJECTOR CHALLENGI NG THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON LEGAL GROUND CONTENDED INTER ALIA THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE AO U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT ARE NOT SUSTAINABL E AS THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FUL LY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT, WHICH FACT IS PROVE D FROM THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 154 OF THE ACT INITIALLY TO RECTIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON WHICH NO ORDER WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN PASSED; THAT REA SONS RECORDED ARE MIRROR IMAGE OF THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE NOTICE U/ S 154 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A). 7. UNDISPUTEDLY, ORIGINALLY ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS FRAMED U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT AO HAS INITIALLY ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 154/155 OF THE ACT, AVAILABLE AT PAGES 1 & 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK, BUT WHEN ASSESSMENT RECORD WAS PERUSED IN THE OPEN COURT, THERE IS NEITHER ANY ORDER SHEET NOR FINAL ORDER, IF ANY, PASSED CONSEQUENT UPON CO NO.84/DEL/2016 5 THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. FOR READY PE RUSAL, NOTICE ISSUED U/S 154 IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER:- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154 / 155 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19611 35 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957/34 OF THE GIFT TAX ACT, 1958. NO.3828 OFFICE OF THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -II, FARIDABAD. NEW C.G.O. COMPLEX, NH-IV, NIT, FARIDABAD. DATED: 10.01.2011 TO M/S CHAND INDUSTRIES, 7 A, MARKET - 1, NIT FARIDABAD. SIR / MADAM, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143 (3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06/2006-07 MADE ON 13.12.2007/04.12.2008 IN YO UR CASE (IT/WT/GT) REQUIRES TO BE APPENDED AS THERE IS A MI STAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECT ION 154/155 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961/35 WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 / 34 OF GIFT TAX ACT, 1958. THE RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE, AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF ENHANCING THE A SSESSMENT / REDUCING THE REFUND / INCREASING YOUR LIABILITY AND , THEREFORE, IF YOU WISH TO BE HEARD IN THIS CONNECTION YOU ARE REQ UESTED TO APPEAR IN PERSON OR BY AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IN MY OFFICE AT FARIDABAD ON 21.01.2011 AT 3:00 P.M. IF, HOWEVER , YOU INTEND SENDING A WRITTEN REPLY TO THIS NOTICE AND DO NOT W ISH TO BE HEARD IN PERSON, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ENSURE THAT YOUR RE PLY REACHES ME ON OR BEFORE THE DATE MENTIONED ABOVE. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- ( N.K. BANSAL) ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD. DETAILS OF MISTAKE (1) AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184, RETURN OF FI RM BE ACCOMPANIED WITH INSTRUMENT AND SALARY PAYABLE TO W ORKING PARTNERS BE ALSO SPECIFIED IN DEED, OTHERWISE NO SA LARY IS ALLOWABLE. IN THIS CASE, PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS EXECU TED ON 01.04.2004 AND AMOUNT OF SALARY OF RS.1,92,000/- PA YABLE TO PARTNERS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 200 6-07 WAS CO NO.84/DEL/2016 6 NOT MENTIONED IN PARTNERSHIP DEED. THE SALARY OF RS .1,92,000/- PAID TO PARTNERS DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006-07 WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AND NEEDS TO BE DISALLOWED. HENCE THE SAME IS PROPOSED TO BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK IN THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 20 06-07. (2) DEPRECIATION ON FURNITURE @ 7.5% WAS ALLOWABLE BUT DEPRECIATION @ 12.5% WAS ALLOWED. HENCE, IT IS PROP OSED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.1840/- (4430-2590). (3) INTEREST U/S 234B WAS CHARGEABLE AT RS.62,256/ - AS AGAINST RS.59,315/- CHARGED. THEREFORE, INTEREST U/ S 234B IS TO BE CHARGED AT RS. 2,914/-. (4) IN COLUMN 27(A) OF THE AUDIT REPORT, THE AUDITO R HAS REMARKED THAT 'DETAILS ENCLOSED AS PER ARINEXURE-7' BUT ANNEXURE-7 HAS NOT BEEN FOUND ENCLOSED. IN THE ABSE NCE OF THIS IT CAN NOT BE ASCERTAINED THAT TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTE D ON THE PAYMENTS OF RS.6,00,000/-, RS. 6,92,497/-, RS.2,81, 033/- , RS.2,12,75/-, RS.33,39,187/- + RS.223962/-, RS.1,02 ,059/-, RS.1,79,052/- AND RS.7,03,009/- UNDER THE HEADS REN T, JOB WORK, FREIGHT & CARTAGE, CARTAGE OUTWARD , INTEREST , PRO CESSING CHARGES, PROFESSIONAL CHARGES AND SALARY RESPECTIVELY. IT IS THEREFORE REQUIRED TO FILE MONTHWISE & PARTYWISE DETAIL OF AB OVE EXPENSES. (5) A PLOT HAS BEEN PURCHASED FROM HSIDC FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.58,80,000/- AND INTEREST AMOUNT ING TO RS.17,90,000/- HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE P & L A/C. A S THE ASSET WAS NOT PUT TO USE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE INTEREST RE LATING TO ABOVE INVESTMENT IS NOT ALLOWABLE AND IT SHOULD BE CAPITA LIZED. 8. TO PROCEED FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO EXTR ACT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AS UNDER :- REASONS RECORDED U/S 148(2) BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 1. NAME OF ASSESSEE M/S CHAND INDUSTRY PLOT NO. 7A, MARKET-1, NIT, FARIDABAD 2. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 3. PAN AABFC8607Q 4. STATUS FIRM REASONS RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.10,43,724/- WAS FILED ON 31.10.2005. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 13.12.2007 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS.13,79,270/-. IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT, CO NO.84/DEL/2016 7 1. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184 OF THE ACT A FIRM SHALL BE ASSESSED AS A FIRM IF THE PARTNERSHIP IS EVIDENC ED BY AN INSTRUMENT AND THE INDIVIDUAL SHARES OF THE PARTNER S ARE SPECIFIED IN THAT INSTRUMENT. FURTHER, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) IN THE CASE OF ANY FIRM ASSESSABLE AS SUCH, ANY PAY MENT OF REMUNERATION TO ANY PARTNER WHO IS A WORKING PARTNE R BUT WHICH IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY OR IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED, SHALL NOT BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTIN G THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUS INESS OR PROFESSION'. 'IN THE INSTANT CASE, A PARTNERSHIP DE ED WAS EXECUTED ON 01.04.2004, BUT AMOUNT OF SALARY PAYABL E TO PARTNERS IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE SAID PARTNERSHIP DEED. HENC E, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT, SALARY OF RS.1,92,000/- PAID TO PARTNERS IN THE A.Y. 2005-06 WAS NOT DEDUCT IBLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THE SAME WAS NOT ALLOWA BLE. IN THIS WAY, INCOME OF RS.1,92,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT . 2 A PLOT WAS PURCHASED FROM HSIDC AND INVESTMENT O F RS.23,78,000/- WAS MADE. SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF INTE REST HAS BEEN DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. AS THE ASSET PURCHASED FROM BORROWED FUNDS WAS NOT PUT TO USE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE INTEREST RELATING TO ABOVE INVESTMENT BEING RS.2,85,360/- (@ 12% P.A) WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AND IT WAS REQUIRED TO BE CAPITALIZED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DONE SO AND HENCE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.2,85,360/- HAS ES CAPED ASSESSMENT. 3 THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON FURNITU RE @ 12.50% ON AMOUNT OF RS.35,447/- AT RS.4,430/-, THOU GH IT WAS ALLOWABLE @ 7.5% AT RS.2,658/-. IN THIS WAY, EXCESS DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,772/- (4,430 - 2,658) HAS BEEN CLAIMED AND HENCE, EQUAL INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN ADDITION TO ABOVE, IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT: IN COLUMN 27(A) OF THE AUDIT REPORT, THE .AUDITOR H AS REMARKED THAT 'DETAILS ENCLOSED AS PER ANNEXURE-7' BUT ANNEX URE-7 WAS NOT ENCLOSED. GIVEN THIS FACT, IT IS ASSUMED THAT T DS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED ON THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS:- RENT RS.6,00,000/- JOB WORK RS.6,92,407/- FREIGHT &. CARTAGE RS.2,81,033/- CARTAGE OUTWARD RS.2,12,751/- INTEREST RS.33,39,187/- PROCESSING CHARGES RS.1,02,059/- PROFESSIONAL CHARGES RS.1,79,052/- TOTAL RS.54,06,489/- CO NO.84/DEL/2016 8 DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD BUT NO CORROBORATIV E EVIDENCE FOR HAVING MADE TDS HAS BEEN FILED. ACCORDINGLY, THE TO TAL AMOUNT OF RS.54,06,489/- WAS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DONE SO. IN VIEW OF THIS THE INCOME OF RS.5 4,06,489/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.58,85,621/- (1,92 ,000 + 2,85,360 + 1,772 + 54,06,489) HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE' PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISC LOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS' ASSESSM ENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 14 8 IS BEING ISSUED AFTER OBTAINING NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE LD. CIT, FARIDABAD. 9. SIMULTANEOUS PERUSAL OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND REASONS RECORDED GOES TO PROVE THAT BOTH ARE ON THE SAME FOOTING WHICH PROVES APPARENTLY THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL NECESSARY FACTS FOR CO MPUTATION OF INCOME AND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS TO CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 10. LD, DR FOR THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE PROCE EDINGS INITIATED FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER WERE PRESUMED TO BE DROPPED AND THEREAFTER VALID REOPENING HAS BEEN MADE. BUT WE ARE OF THE C ONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN NEITHER THERE IS ANY ORDER SHEET FOR DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS NOR THERE IS ANY FINAL ORDER OF RECTIFICATION, AO WAS N OT EMPOWERED TO RUN PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS ONE U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND ANO THER U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. 11. IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF THE KADIYAN COOP L&C SOCIETY LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.667/DEL/2018 ORDER DATED 13.11.2018 CO NO.84/DEL/2016 9 BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT (2010) 32 2 ITR 369 BY HOLDING THAT, WHEN NOTICE ISSUED U/S 147/148 CONTA INS THE SAME REASONS AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE RECTIFICATION PROCEEDI NGS WHICH HAVE BEEN DROPPED AND NO NEW MATERIAL FOR REOPENING HAS BEEN DISCLOSED, THE AO HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. 12. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN CASE CITED AS DAMODAR H. SHAH VS. ACIT (2000) 245 ITR 774 ALSO HELD THAT THE SCOPE OF TWO PROCEEDINGS, ONE UNDER POWER OF RECTIFICATION OF MI STAKE U/S 154; AND TWO, POWER OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 ARE D IFFERENT ONE AND THE AO COULD TAKE RECOURSE TO EITHER. 13. COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE CITED AS JETHALAL K. MORBIA VS. ACIT (2007) 109 TTJ 0001 ALSO HELD THAT INITIATION OF REOPENING PROCEEDINGS DURING PENDENCY OF RECTIFICAT ION PROCEEDINGS ON THE SAME ISSUES ARE INVALID. 14. SO, IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE AN D FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HONBLE CALCUTT A AND GUJARAT HIGH COURTS AND COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT INITIATION OF RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS U /S 154 OF THE ACT BY THE AO AND SIMULTANEOUSLY INITIATING THE REOPENING OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT ON THE SAME REAS ONS, PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMEN T, ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE CO NO.84/DEL/2016 10 IN THE EYES OF LAW AND AS SUCH CONSEQUENT ASSESSMEN T FRAMED U/S 143 (3)/148 OF THE ACT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 15. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCEEDED ON THE LEGAL G ROUND AS PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 ARE HELD TO BE WITHOUT JURI SDICTION AND BAD IN LAW, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, ASS ESSMENT HAS BEEN QUASHED AND CONSEQUENT CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 22 ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), FARIDABAD. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.