Jagat Tailkies Distributors, V. DCIT circle 29 (1),

ITA 1069/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0249 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: KAANAN KAPUR; BHUSHAN KAPUR S
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Assessment record; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH C CC C : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE , VICE , VICE , VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO INTURI RAMA RAO INTURI RAMA RAO INTURI RAMA RAO, , , , ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO S SS S . .. . 1068/DEL/2008 TO 1073/DEL/2008 1068/DEL/2008 TO 1073/DEL/2008 1068/DEL/2008 TO 1073/DEL/2008 1068/DEL/2008 TO 1073/DEL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR S SS S : : : : 1999 1999 1999 1999 - -- - 2000 TO 2004 2000 TO 2004 2000 TO 2004 2000 TO 2004 - -- - 05 0505 05 M/S JAGAT TALKIES M/S JAGAT TALKIES M/S JAGAT TALKIES M/S JAGAT TALKIES DIST DIST DIST DISTRIBUTORS, RIBUTORS, RIBUTORS, RIBUTORS, 1489, CHANDNI CHOWK, 1489, CHANDNI CHOWK, 1489, CHANDNI CHOWK, 1489, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI 110 006. 110 006. 110 006. 110 006. PAN : AAAFJ5470B. PAN : AAAFJ5470B. PAN : AAAFJ5470B. PAN : AAAFJ5470B. VS. VS. VS. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -29(1), 29(1), 29(1), 29(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI KAANAN KAPUR AND SHRI BHUSHAN KAPUR, ADVOCATES. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.VASANTHAN, SENIOR DR. DATE OF HEARING : 07.05.2015 07.05.2015 07.05.2015 07.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.06.2015 10.06.2015 10.06.2015 10.06.2015 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G.C. GUPTA PER G.C. GUPTA PER G.C. GUPTA PER G.C. GUPTA, VP , VP , VP , VP : :: : THIS BUNCH OF SIX APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSE E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2004-05 IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OF W ITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 4 OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT COMPLETIN G ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3)/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 WAS IN ORDER. ITA-1068 TO 1073/DEL/2008 2 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING A.O.S ACTION OF ISSUING THE NOTICE U /S 148 WHICH WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE CONDITION PRE CEDENT TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION U/S 148 I.E. THE R ECORDING OF REASON WAS TOTALLY ABSENT. 3. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO APPELLANT BEFORE MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3)/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. 4. THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ASSESSING OFFICER ARE AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATU RAL JUSTICE. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION, THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS O RDER DATED 05.01.2009, HAS PASSED THE EX PARTE APPELLATE ORDER BY RECORDING NONE PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT AND HAS RESTORE D THE ISSUE OF LEGALITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY I SSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR A FRESH DECISION TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO & OTHERS [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). WITH REGARD TO THE OTHE R GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT ED IN ITS ORDER THAT NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR REGARDING THE OTHER G ROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OF THESE YEARS AS THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS TO FRAME DE-NOVO ASSESSMENTS IN ALL THESE YEARS AND, HENCE, AT THIS STAGE, NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR REGARDING THE OTHER GROU NDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED A WRIT PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DELHI TRIBUNAL DATED 05.01.2009 BEFORE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 09.05.2011, ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DA TED 05.01.2009 AND DIRECTED THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE AFORESAID APPEA LS AFRESH AND ITA-1068 TO 1073/DEL/2008 3 CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FIXE D FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR THE COPY OF THE REASONS LEADING TO REOPENING OF THE ASSESSME NT IN THESE CASES UNDER SECTION 148, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IG NORED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED WITH THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A FOUR PAGE LETTER DATED 23.06.2 006 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN A REQUEST HAS BEEN MA DE IN THE CONCLUDING PART OF THE LETTER TO SUPPLY THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE CASES UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED T HAT IN VIEW OF THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPLYING THE R EASONS RECORDED WHILE REOPENING THE ASSESSMENTS IN THIS CASE BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WE RE BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AN AFFIDAVIT REGARDING NON-RECEIPT OF REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 WAS FILED. HE REFERRE D TO PARAGRAPH 4.6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHEREIN HE HAS RECORDED THAT IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE REQUEST FOR PROVIDING REASONS FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 148 WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER RECORDED THAT IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT THERE WAS NO FORMA L COMMUNICATION OF THE REASONS FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DECID ED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE PLEA THAT IT WAS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED IGNORANT ABOUT THE REASONS FOR TH E ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON A SERIES OF DECISIONS AS UNDER :- (I) GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO AND OTHERS [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). ITA-1068 TO 1073/DEL/2008 4 (II) HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY VS. CIT AND ANR. [2009] 308 ITR 38 (DELHI). (III) CIT VS. VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED [2012] 340 ITR 66 (BOM). (IV) CIT VS. FOMENTO RESORTS AND HOTELS LTD. JUDG MENT DATED 27.11.2006 IN TAX APPEAL NO.71 OF 2006 (BOMBAY HIGH COURT). (V) SHRI BALWANT RAI WADHWA VS. ITO ORDER DATED 1 4.01.2011 IN ITA NO.4806/DEL/2010 (ITAT, DELHI A BENCH). (VI) INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA VS. DCIT ORDER DATED 12.12.2012 IN ITA NO.1391 AND 1394/M/2004 (ITAT, MU MBAI D BENCH). (VII) S. PRASAD RAJU VS. DCIT [2005] 96 TTJ (HYD) 832. (VIII) TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. DCIT [2012] 52 SOT 465 (MUM). (IX) VIRENDRA DEV DIXIT AND SMT. KAMLA DEVI DIXIT V S. ACIT [2011] 331 ITR 483 (ALL). (X) KAMAL CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX [2009] 20 VST 157 (ALL). (XI) RAJESH BABUBHAI DAMANIA VS. CIT [2001] 251 I TR 541 (GUJ.). (XII) HIRA LAL VS. RATAN LAL AIR 1944 ALL 293. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY ITA-1068 TO 1073/DEL/2008 5 (SUPRA) CLINCHES THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING THE REASONS AND C OMMUNICATING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE, ENABLING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE OBJECTIONS AND THE REQUIREMENT OF PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER ARE ALL DES IGNED TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT REOPEN ASSESSME NTS WHICH HAVE BEEN FINALIZED ON HIS MERE WHIM OR FANCY AND THAT H E DOES SO ONLY ON THE BASIS OF LAWFUL REASONS. THUS, A DEVIATION FRO M THESE DIRECTIONS WOULD ENTAIL THE NULLIFYING OF THE PROCEEDINGS. TH E HONBLE HIGH COURT, FOR THIS REASON, QUASHED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48 AS WELL AS ALL PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT THERETO INCLUDING THE ASSESS MENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CI T(A) HAS PASSED A DETAILED AND SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ISSUE OF VALIDIT Y OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AS RECORDED IN PARAGRAPH 6.4 OF HIS APPE LLATE ORDER WAS THAT IT WAS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINE D IGNORANT ABOUT THE REASONS FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED CERTAIN FACTS, I.E., THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN FOR A.Y. 1998-99 ALTHOUGH ITS TOTAL INCO ME WAS IN EXCESS OF MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX AND THA T, AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(1), IT WAS REQUIRED TO FU RNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM ETC. AND THAT, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 READ WITH EXPLANATION 2(A) THERETO, WHE RE NO RETURN OF INCOME IS FURNISHED, ALTHOUGH THE TOTAL INCOME EXCE EDS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX, THE CASE IS DE EMED TO BE ONE WHERE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSME NT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ASSESS SUCH INCOME UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED DR REFERRED TO PARAGRAPH 9 .1 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER WHEREIN IT WAS RECORDED THAT THE OBS ERVATION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. ITA-1068 TO 1073/DEL/2008 6 (SUPRA) DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT NON-COMMUNICATION OF THE REASONS WOULD RESULT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESS MENT ORDER BECOMING VOID OR BAD IN LAW WHERE THE RETURN OF INC OME UNDER SECTION 139(1) ITSELF WAS NOT FILED. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NO TED THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE SAID OBSERVATION WAS MADE BY THE H ONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ASSESSEE WHO HAS FILED THE RET URN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. LEARNED DR RELIED ON TH E DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN SAHKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD. VS. ACIT IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3955 OF 2014 DATED 31. 03.2014 IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COOPERATED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND, THEREFORE, IT SHOULD NOT BE OPEN T O THE ASSESSEE NOW TO PLEAD THAT IT WAS NOT SUPPLIED THE COPY OF THE R EASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE LEARNED DR ALSO R ELIED ON THE EX PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 05.01.2009 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOR A FRESH DECISION. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE BASIC FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE NOT I N DISPUTE. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED IN THIS CAS E BY ISSUE OF NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED FOR THE REASONS LEADING TO THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 AN D HAS ALSO FILED A FOUR PAGE LETTER DATED 23.06.2006 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN , APART FROM DEALING WITH THE QUERIES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, A REQUEST WAS MADE IN THE CONCLUDING PART OF THE LETTER TO SUPPLY THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT TO THIS EFFECT REGARDING NON-REC EIPT OF REASONS FOR ITA-1068 TO 1073/DEL/2008 7 REOPENING OF THE CASE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING IN PARAGRAPH 6.4 OF HIS APPELLATE O RDER THAT IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE REQUEST FOR PROVIDING REA SONS FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER RECORDED THAT IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT THERE WAS NO FORMAL COMMUNICATION OF THE REASO NS FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O THE ASSESSEE. THIS FINDING RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) COULD N OT BE CONTROVERTED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ONLY ISSUE WHICH REQUIRES ADJUDICATION IS THAT WHETHER T HE NON- COMMUNICATION OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUING N OTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, INSPITE OF A SPECIFIC REQUE ST MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PROVIDING REASONS FOR ISSUING THE NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 148, RENDERS THE WHOLE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIT IATED AND VOID IN LAW. THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 05.01.2009 , HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 FOR T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND HAS RESTORED THE SAME TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN ITS JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2002 IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA), HELD THAT WHEN A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS ISSUE D, THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE NOTICE IS TO FILE RETURN AND IF H E SO DESIRES, TO SEEK REASONS FOR ISSUING NOTICES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO FURNISH THE REASONS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. ON RECEIPT O F REASONS, THE NOTICE IS ENTITLED TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO ISSUANCE OF NOTIC E AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR FURNISHING OF THE REASONS RECORDED FO R ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS NOT FURNISHED THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED DR, THAT THIS DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. ITA-1068 TO 1073/DEL/2008 8 (SUPRA) IS DISTINGUISHABLE, AS, IN THIS CASE, THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE FIND THAT FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME OR OTHERWISE IS NOT DECISIVE TO THE ISSUE OF LEGALITY OF THE NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT. THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN SAHKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD. (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DR, IS OF NO H ELP TO THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. WE FIND THAT THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS C ASE HAS SUPPLIED THE ASSESSEE THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ISSUING SUCH NOTICE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HA S CONCLUDED IN THIS CASE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL SUPPLY THE RE ASONS RECORDED BY HIM FOR ISSUING SUCH NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE F ILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE ASSE SSEE TO DEMAND SUCH REASONS. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE U S, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS FAILED TO SUPPLY THE A SSESSEE THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ISSUA NCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE RELIANCE OF THE LEARNE D DR ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 05.0 1.2009, WHEREIN THE ISSUE OF LEGALITY OF ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS ALSO MISPLACED FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATE D 05.01.2009 WAS SET ASIDE BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT VIDE THEI R ORDER DATED 09.05.2011, WHEREIN IT DIRECTED THE TRIBUNAL TO DEC IDE THE AFORESAID APPEALS AFRESH. THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONC E IT IS FOUND THAT THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUANCE OF NO TICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, INSPI TE OF A SPECIFIC REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS BEHALF, THE PR OCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT THEREAFTER, INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED, SHALL BE VITIATED AND VOID. THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY (SUPRA) IS BINDING ON THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE REQUIREMENT O F RECORDING THE REASONS AND COMMUNICATING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE, ENABLING THE ITA-1068 TO 1073/DEL/2008 9 ASSESSEE TO FILE OBJECTIONS AND THE REQUIREMENT OF PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER, ARE ALL DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DOES NOT REOPEN THE ASSESSMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN FINALIZED ON HIS MERE WHIM AND FANCY, AND THAT HE DOES SO ONLY ON THE BASIS OF LAWFUL REASONS AND, A DEVIATION FROM THESE DIRECTIONS WOULD ENTAIL THE NULLIFYING OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND, THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN THIS CA SE WAS ACCORDINGLY QUASHED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HO N'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY (SUPRA), WE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLD THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN THE COPY OF TH E REASONS FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSPITE OF A SPECIFIC WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESS EE FOR PROVIDING THE SAME, THE WHOLE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE RE SULTANT ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/148 OF THE A CT HAVE BECOME VITIATED ENTAILING IN NULLIFYING PROCEEDINGS AND, A CCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3)/148 ARE QUASHED AND, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 4 OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE AP PEALS ARE ALLOWED. 8. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION QUASHING THE REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS ITSELF, WE ARE NOT ADJUDICATING THE OTHER GROUNDS O F APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED BY IT IN ALL THE APPEALS ON MERITS. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JUNE, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( (( ( INTURI RAMA RAO INTURI RAMA RAO INTURI RAMA RAO INTURI RAMA RAO ) )) ) (G. (G. (G. (G. C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA ) )) ) ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. ITA-1068 TO 1073/DEL/2008 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S JAGAT TALKIES DISTRIBUTORS, M/S JAGAT TALKIES DISTRIBUTORS, M/S JAGAT TALKIES DISTRIBUTORS, M/S JAGAT TALKIES DISTRIBUTORS, 1489, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI 1489, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI 1489, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI 1489, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI 11 1111 110 006. 0 006. 0 006. 0 006. 2. RESPONDENT : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -29(1), NEW DELHI. 29(1), NEW DELHI. 29(1), NEW DELHI. 29(1), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR