Sh. Tulvinder Singh, Panchkula V. DCIT, Panchkula

ITA 1101/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8312 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Wrong claim; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 15; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1101/CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) SHRI TULVINDER SINGH, VS. THE D.C.I.T., VILL. KHANGESRA, P.O. KOT, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AIQPS9025F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NEERAJ JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.03.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA DATED 3.10.2011, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS ON 29.3.2004 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.38,99,244/-. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UND ER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T THE 2 ACT) WAS PASSED AS ON 30.11.2005 MAKING ASSESSMENT AT RETURNED INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED THER EAFTER, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 30.3.20 09 STATING THE FOLLOWING REASONS : IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSES FILED RETURN OF INCOME O N 29.03.2004 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.36,99,244/-. ASSESSME NT ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS PASSED ON 30.11.2005 ASSESSING THE I NCOME AT RETURNED INCOME. AS PER THE OFFICE NOTE APPENDED W ITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT AS PER TH E REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR THE LAND IS OUTSIDE THE MUNICIPAL LIM ITS AND NO COMPENSATION IS TAXABLE. THE LAND ON WHICH COMPENSATION WAS PAID IS SITUATED AT VILLAGE BANA MADANPUR, JHURIWAL, TEH & DIST. PANCHKULA. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 COMPENSATION THE ASSESSSEE AGAINST LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE JHURIWAL AND MADANPUR, TEH -PANCHKULO, HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX AS IT HAS BEEN PROVED THAT THE SAID LAND IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL AND NO AGRICULLTURAL ACTIVIT IES HAVE BEEN DONE ON IT. THEREFORE THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE ON THE LAND SITUATED AT VILICGE BANA MADANP UR, JHURIWAL, TEH & DIST. PANCHKULA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 AMOUNTING TO RS. 44,50,534/- IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED.(C OPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 IS ALSO ATT ACHED). SINCE, COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY TAXABLE, INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.44,50,534/- IS FULLY TAXABLE. THEREFORE, HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.44,50,534/-, ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE CASE, THEREFORE RE-OPENED WITHIN THE MEANING SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERING VARIOUS REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UN DER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE A CT AT AN 3 INCOME OF RS.38,99,244/- MAKING ADDITION OF AN AMOU NT OF RS.44,50,534/- ON ACCOUNT OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION . 4. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), APART FROM TH E ARGUMENTS ON MERITS AND OTHER LEGAL ARGUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 148 OF THE ACT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WAS STATED THAT NOTICE WA S ISSUED ON 30.3.2009 AND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FR OM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ENDED ON 31.3.20 08. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS TIME BARRED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT. DETAILED SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD WERE MADE. HOW EVER, REJECTING ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DISMISSED THE GROUND AND HELD THAT CONDITION OF CLAUSE (III) TO PROVISO-I TO SECTION 1 47 OF THE ACT WAS NOT SATISFIED, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR ASSESSMENT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. AS MANY AS NINE GROUNDS HAVE BEE N RAISED IN APPEAL HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED NOT TO PRESS ANY OF THE GROUNDS EXCEPT GROUND NO.3, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 4 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 BY THE LD. A.O. AND MAKING CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT THERETO AS VALID, WHEREAS THE SAME IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE US, TO BUTTRESS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, TOOK US TO VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 42, WH ICH IS A LETTER DATED 15.2.2005, FILED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER, WHEREBY AT POINT NO.1, ASSESSEE HAS STATED THE FACTS THAT HE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.70,27,87 7/- FROM HUDA, PANCHKULA AGAINST THE ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND THROUGH COURT ORDER. THE ADDRESS OF THE LAND IS PROVIDED AND IT IS STATED THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED FAR FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT AND NO CAPITAL GAIN IS INV OLVED. THAT OUT OF RS.70,27,877/- PRINCIPAL AMOUNT IS RS.37,20,182/- WHILE INTEREST IS RS.36,82,288/-. I T WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INCOME TA X ON THE AMOUNT WHICH IS INTEREST ON COMPENSATION. THE SUBMISSION REGARDING THE OTHER LAND FROM WHERE RS.7,30,352/- WAS RECEIVED WAS ALSO MADE. OUR ATTE NTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO A COPY OF ORDER SHEET PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 51, WHEREIN AS ON 8.2.2015, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED ASSESSEE WHY 5 THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACQUISITION OF LAN D BE NOT TAXED AS THE LAND IS SITUATED IN URBAN AREA. F URTHER, AS ON 15.3.2005, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ADVOCATE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED OUTS IDE URBAN AREA, HENCE EXEMPT. COPY OF ANOTHER LETTER F ILED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 7.3.2015 WAS ALSO ENCLOSED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 54, IN WHICH THE SUBMISSIONS, WHICH WERE EARLIER MADE BY LETTER DATE D 15.2.2005 WERE REITERATED TOGETHER WITH COPIES OF F ORM-D RELATING TO BOTH THE LANDS, IN WHICH NAME OF THE WO RK FOR WHICH THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED AND THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION WAS MENTIONED. COPIES OF BANK STATEME NTS WERE ALSO ENCLOSED WITH THIS LETTER. PAGE 66 IS A REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR DATED 15.3.2005 FILED BY THE INSPECTO R DEPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF, BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143( 3) OF THE ACT. IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THIS REPORT THAT ON A VISIT TO THE IMPUGNED LAND, THE INSPECTOR FOUND THE LAND TO BE FERTILE AND ALSO THAT AT PRESENT WHEAT AND ONION CR OPS WERE GROWN. A GUIDE MAP OF THE VILLAGE WAS ALSO D RAWN BY THE INSPECTOR AT THE END OF THIS REPORT. 7. ALL THE ABOVE EVIDENCES WERE SHOWN TO US TO EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAVING DISCLOSED FULLY AN D TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS, THE ISSUE OF NOTICE FOR REOPENI NG UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION, AS THE SAME HAS BEEN ISSUED AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 6 8. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE ADJUDICATED BY US IS WHETHER T HE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT MADE THERETO IS VALID, NOT BEING TIME BARRED. FROM THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS, WE SEE THAT THE CASE PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, ASSESSMENT HAS ALREADY BEE N COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE N OTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 IS DATED 30.3.2009. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THESE DATES. THEREFORE, IT IS QUITE C LEAR THAT THE CASE HAS BEEN REOPENED AFTER A PERIOD OF FOUR Y EARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN SU CH A SCENARIO, A CASE CAN BE REOPENED AFTER FOUR YEARS F ROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY IF THE ASS ESSEE FAILS TO FILE THE RETURN OR THERE IS A FAILURE ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERI AL FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT. FOR THIS, WE MAY REFER TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 147, SPECIFICALLY THE PROVISO OF THE SAID SECTION, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 147. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEV E THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION S OF 7 SECTIONS 148 TO 153, ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENT LY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, OR RECOMPUTE THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLO WANCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNE D (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION AND IN SECTIONS 148 TO 15 3 REFERRED TO AS THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR) : PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE R ELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS S ECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REAS ON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RE TURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FOR THA T ASSESSMENT YEAR. 10. FROM THE PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT FOR THE CASES WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN AS SESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE LIMITATION PER IOD FOR REOPENING UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS FOUR YEAR S FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, WITH AN EX CEPTION IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO FILE THE RETUR N OF INCOME OR FAILS TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MAT ERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, BEFORE G OING FURTHER, WE HAVE TO SEE WHETHER IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY AS THIS IS NOT A CASE OF NON FILING OF RETURN. AS ALRE ADY DISCUSSED IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED CO UNSEL 8 FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE OF ENHANCED COMPENSATIO N WAS DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INC OME. FURTHER, ON QUERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , DUE DISCLOSURES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE REC ORD, IT IS NOT INFERRED FROM ANYWHERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE ANY MATERIAL FACT RELATING TO TH E ISSUE IN QUESTION. THOUGH THERE ARE A NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS FO R THE PROPOSITION THAT IN SUCH A BACKGROUND THE ASSESSMEN T CANNOT BE REOPENED AFTER A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FRO M THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, WE ARE NOT REFERRI NG TO ALL THOSE, AS WE ARE GUIDED BY THE ACT ITSELF FOR S AID PURPOSE. 11. NOW, THE OBVIOUS QUESTION ARISES IS WHETHER IN SUCH A CASE, CAN IT BE SAID TO BE A TRUE AND FULL D ISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS OR NOT. THOUGH WE REFRAIN OURSELV ES TO GIVE ANY FINDING ON THE MERITS OF CASE AT THIS STAG E. HOWEVER, THIS ISSUE HAS TO BE DISCUSSED HERE, AS TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT MADE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF THE MATERIAL FACTS RELATING TO COMPENSATION RECEIVED ON ACQUISITION OF LAND. 12. WE FIND THAT THE SITUATION HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN VERY APT WORDS IN THE CASE OF TITANOR COMPONENTS LT D. VS. ACIT, 343 ITR 183, BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AS FOLL OWS : WHERE A REASSESSMENT IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE AFTER FOUR YEARS THE POWER CONFERRED BY SECTION 9 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, DOES NOT PROVIDE AFRESH OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CORRECT AN INCORRECT ASSESSMENT MADE EARLIER UNLESS THE MISTAKE IN THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE IS THE RESULT OF A FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY AN D TRULY DISCLOSE ALL MATERIALS FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WRONG CLAIM MADE BY AN ASSESSEE AFTER DISCLOSING ALL THE TRUE AND MATERIAL FACTS AND A WRONG CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY WITHHOLDING THE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY. IT IS ONLY IN THE LATTER CASE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PROCEED UNDER SECTION 147. HELD, ALLOWING THE PETITION, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT RECORDED THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. WHAT WAS RECORDED WAS THAT THE PETITIONER HAD WRONGLY CLAIMED CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS WHICH HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN THE YEAR 2004 WERE NOT VALID. 13. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE ARE ALSO GUIDED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO. LTD.. VS. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 1 91 (SC), WHERE AT PARA 7 OF THE JUDGMENT, THE HON'BLE COURT HAS NOT MINCED ANY WORDS TO DESCRIBE THE DUTIES OF ASSESSEE AND THAT OF THE REVENUE SUCH A SITUATION. THE PARA READS AS UNDER : DOES THE DUTY, HOWEVER, EXTEND BEYOND THE FULL AND TRUTHFUL DISCLOSURE OF ALL PRIMARY FACTS ? THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION MUST BE IN THE NEGATIVE. 10 ONCE ALL THE PRIMARY FACTS ARE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, HE REQUIRES NO FURTHER ASSISTANCE BY WAY OF DISCLOSURE. IT IS FOR HIM TO DECIDE WHAT INFERENCES OF FACTS CAN BE REASONABLY DRAWN AND WHAT LEGAL INFERENCES HAVE ULTIMATELY TO BE DRAWN. IT IS NOT FOR SOMEBODY ELSEFAR LESS THE ASSESSEE TO TELL THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHAT INFERENCES, WHETHER OF FACTS OR LAW, SHOULD BE DRAWN. INDEED, WHEN IT IS REMEMBERED THAT PEOPLE OFTEN DIFFER AS REGARDS WHAT INFERENCES SHOULD BE DRAWN FROM GIVEN FACTS, IT WILL BE MEANINGLESS TO DEMAND THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST DISCLOSE WHAT INFERENCESWHETHER OF FACTS OR LAWHE WOULD DRAW FROM THE PRIMARY FACTS. IF FROM PRIMARY FACTS MORE INFERENCES THAN ONE COULD BE DRAWN, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DRAWN ANY PARTICULAR INFERENCE AND COMMUNICATED IT TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. HOW COULD AN ASSESSEE BE CHARGED WITH FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE AN INFERENCE, WHICH HE MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE DRAWN? 14. THE PREPOSITION HAS BEEN RELIED ON IN A NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS. ONE OF THE LAN DMARK JUDGMENT IS THAT OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. & ORS. VS. JCIT & ORS. (20 00) 245 ITR 645. 15. NOW, THE LAW WHICH EMERGES FROM THE ABOVE IS THAT THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO DISCLOSE ALL MA TERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY AND THE DUTY ENDS AT THAT. ON THE BASIS OF THESE MATERIAL FACTS, THE DUTY IS THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY THE LAW CORRECTLY. THE A SSESSEE 11 IS NOT OBLIGED TO TEACH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THE CORRECT LAW TO BE APPLIED ON THE BASIS OF HIS DISCLOSURE. T HE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE FULL DIS CLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS. THE INABILITY OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO NOT APPLY THE LAW PROPERLY ON THE FULL AND TRUE DIS CLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE COVERED UP IN THE GU ISE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, THAT TOO AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE PRESENT CASE, T O US, DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR TO BE THAT OF APPLYING A LAW INCORRECTLY, THIS WAS JUST AN INFERENCE TAKEN BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS ON THE BA SIS OF FULL AND TRUE MATERIAL FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSES SEE. 16. THE QUERY RELATED TO THE SAID LAND WAS BEING ASKED BY THE ASSESSEE REPEATEDLY IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WERE DULY REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ALL ALONG HAD B EEN THAT IT WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. EVEN AN INSPECTO R WAS DEPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE REFERENCE OF THIS FACT IS ALSO COMING IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENIN G ALSO. THE INSPECTOR HAD REPORTED THAT THE LAND WAS FERTIL E AND CROPS WERE BEING GROWN THERE. THE GUIDE MAP FOR LOC ATION OF THE LAND WAS ALSO ENCLOSED WITH THE REPORT. IN S UCH A SCENARIO WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW IT CAN BE SAID TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. RATHER, IN THIS CASE, EVEN THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN EARLIER PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE DRAWN A WRONG INFERENCE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AND INVESTIGATIO N ON 12 RECORD. THE REOPENING, ON THE BASIS OF SOME FINDIN G, ARRIVED IN A LATER ASSESSMENT YEAR, IN SUCH A SCENA RIO, TO US SEEMS TO BE A REVIEW OF ORDER, WHICH POWER HAS N OT BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE ACT. 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT IN THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD NO JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE CASE UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT, AS THE SAME IS BARRED BY LIMITATION, HAVIN G BEEN OPENED AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE ORDER THE REOPENING TO BE ILL EGAL AND HEREBY QUASH THE SAME. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29 TH MARCH, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE D R. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH