PUNSUMI INDIA LTD, JAIPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 1203/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8643 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P P MEENA ACIT
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEK SHIVPURI
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Proportionate interest; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Borrowed satisfaction; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 147; 148; 11

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH JESK LH0 KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PA L RAO, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1993-94 TO 1995-96 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. D-16, MEERA MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAEFP 0156 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DILEEP SHIVPURI (ADV.), SHRI PRAMOD PATNI (C.A.) & SHRI ABHISHEK SHIVPURI (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.P. MEENA (ACIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 30/04/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 /07/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST COMPOSITE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 13.08.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995-96 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF APPEALS AS THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASIDE TO THE RE CORD OF THE AO FOR ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 2 FRESH ADJUDICATION AND CONSEQUENTLY THESE APPEALS A RISING FROM THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2016 PASSED BY THE AO IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUEN TLY, NOTICE DATED 31.05.2001 U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY T HE AO AND THE REASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 28.03.2003. TH E ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) INCLUDING THE LEGALITY AND ACTION OF THE AO IN ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 147/ 148 AS AN ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). VIDE ORDER DATED 15.10.2004, THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERIT BUT NOT ON THE LEGAL ISSUE OF NOTIC E U/S 147/48 OF THE ACT. THE DEPARTMENT CONTESTED THE RELIEF ALL OWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ASSESSEE FIL ED A CROSS OBJECTION THEREIN RAISING THE ISSUE OF LEGALITY OF NOTICE U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT AND THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IN AD DITION TO OTHER GROUNDS TAKEN ON MERITS OF THE CASE. THE TRIB UNAL PASSED A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 29.02.2008 FOR AY 1993-9 4, 1994-95 AND 1995-96 BUT WITHOUT DEALING WITH LEGAL ISSUE OF ACTION U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT BY THE AO WHICH WAS ALSO NOT DEA LT WITH BY THE LD. CIT(A). SUBSEQUENTLY, ON A MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATION ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 3 FILED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE T RIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19.08.2011 READ WITH CORRIGENDUM DATED 02.02.2012, RECALLED ITS CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 2 9.02.2008 FOR DECIDING THE LEGAL ISSUE ON REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AFRESH. VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 28.02.2014, THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET AS IDE THE REASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDI NG THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SET ASIDE IMPU GNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.03.2016, THE AO HAS DECID ED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSE SSEE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS IN THESE THREE APPEALS AS UND ER:- 1. THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN FACT AS WELL AS IN LAW IN ISSUING THE NOTICE DT. 31.05.2001 FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND IN FRAMING THE RE-ASSESSMENT U/S 147 /148 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVIS IONS OF THE ACT AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW AND FOR ALSO N OT SHARING/COMMUNICATING SUCH REASONS TO BELIEVE AS RECORDED WITH THE SATISFACTION NOTE AS TO ESCAPEM ENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ASSESSEE DESPITE ASSESSEES PRELIMINARY OBJECTION AND REQUESTING FOR SUPPLY OF A COPY OF THE SAME AND THUS FAILING TO FURNISH A COPY ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 4 THEREOF TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSES SMENT AS REQUIRED IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF G.K.N. DRIVESHAFTS (I NDIA) LTD. V. CIT [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). THE ASSESSMENT THUS FRAMED BY THE AO DESERVES TO BE QUASHED/ANNULLED. 2. THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN FACT AS WELL AS IN L AW IN ISSUING THE NOTICE FOR RE-ASSESSMENT WITHOUT RECORD ING SATISFACTION AS TO THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO MAKING OF FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURES OF MATERIAL FACTS WHICH ENABLES THE AO TO INITIATE PRO CEEDINGS AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS AND INSTEAD THE INTERNAL APPROVAL REFERRED TO IN THE AO S ORDER APPEARING TO BE THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF VERIFICATI ON AND CONFIRMATION OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WHICH CLEARLY INDICATING THERE BEING NO FORMATION OF INDEPENDENT SATISFACTIO N FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS LEAVE TO ADD TO AFTER AND/OR AMEND THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TI ME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING NON FURNISHING OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT TO THE ASS ESSEE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT FURNISHIN G THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSEE IS MANDATORY CONDITION AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF G.K .N. ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 5 DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. V. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC). T HE AO IS DUTY BOUND TO SUPPLY THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE REAFTER THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE AC T SHALL BE DISPOSED OFF FIRST BEFORE COMPLETING THE REASSESSME NT. SINCE, THE SUPPLY OF REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE AND DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTIONS PRIOR TO COMPLETION IS A MANDATORY CONDI TION AND THEREFORE, AFTER REASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED FURN ISHING THE REASONS WOULD NOT VALIDATE THE REASSESSMENT ORDER P ASSED WITHOUT SUPPLY THE REASONS. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT DESPITE THE REPEATED REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSEE T HE AO DID NOT SUPPLY THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFOR E, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IN THE SET ASIDE PR OCEEDINGS WITHOUT SUPPLY THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT V ALID AND LIABLE TO SET ASIDE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- PR. CIT VS. V. RAMIAH 103 TAXMANN.COM 201( KAR.) WH ICH HAS UPHELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE 262 TAXMAN 16. MANJULA ATHUR VS. ITO 91 TAXMANN.COM 438 (MADRAS). CIT VS. VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. 340 ITR 66 (BOMBA Y). ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 6 THUS, THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED OR DER AS WELL AS THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS NOT V ALID WITHOUT SUPPLY THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE SET ASID E PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO AND THERE WAS NO DIRECTIO N OF THE TRIBUNAL TO SUPPLY THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DIRECTED TO BE DECIDED BY THE AO AFRESH. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE F IRST ROUND OF APPEAL THERE WAS NO ISSUE REGARDING NON SUPPLY OF T HE REASONS BUT THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO IS LIMITED ONLY TO D ISPOSE OFF THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE VALID ITY OF REOPENING. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT( A) HAS ELABORATELY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO REPRODUCED TH E REASONS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO GRIEVANCE LE FT ONCE THE REASONS ITSELF REPRODUCE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDERS. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THESE ARE NOT THE APPE ALS ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 7 CHALLENGING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO BUT THESE ARE THE APPEALS CHALLENGING THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMEN T ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS PER DIRECTION OF THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 28.02.2014. SINCE, INITIALLY THE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.02.2008 AND THEREAFTER ON THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 02.09.2011 RECALLED THE E ARLIER ORDER FOR DECIDING THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED REGARDING THE V ALIDITY OF REOPENING. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APPEALS WERE AGAIN HEA RD ON THE LIMITED ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING AND VIDE ORD ER DATED 28.02.2014 THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING WAS S ET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH A FTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 2.3 OF ORD ER DATED 28.02.2014 IS AS UNDER:- 2.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT AFTER 01.04.1989 , THE POWERS OF REOPENING HAVE BEEN WIDENED TO A GREATER EXTENT. THE AO HAS BEEN VESTED WITH POWERS TO REOPEN THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN CASE HE HAS SOME MATERIAL OR INFORMATION TO FORM AN OPINION THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 8 CAN RESORT TO PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 1 48 OF THE ACT. ONLY IN CASES WHERE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE SUPPLIED AND ARE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE A.O . AT THE TIME OF FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ON THE BASIS OF THOSE VERY MATERIAL FACTS, THE AO WANTS TO REOPEN, IT CANNOT BE DONE LEGALLY. IN ORDE R SITUATIONS WHERE THE AO WANTS TO CHANGE HIS OPINION BASED ON THE SAME FACTS WHICH HE HAS WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE CANNOT REVISE THE SAME. THE THIRD ASPECT IS OF LIMITATION. THE LD. AR HAS PUT F ORTH HOST OF SUBMISSIONS THROUGH HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE REGARDING BARROWED SATISFACTION AND ALS O CHANGE OF OPINION. THE LIMITATION ISSUED HAS ALSO BEEN BRAKED UP SOMEWHERE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND SO IS THE CASE OF NO REASONS RECORDED CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR. BUT FROM THE RECORD, WE ARE AFRAID THAT WE DO NOT FIND ANY MENTION OF THIS GROUNDS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES OR IN ANY CASE THEY HAVE CURSORILY REFERRED TO. THUS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT FULL AND FINAL FACTS REGARD ING LEGAL ISSUE RECORDED BY THE BENCH ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL BEING A FINAL FACT FINDING AUTHORITY, IT BECOMES IMPERATIVE FOR US TO CULL OUT FULL AND FINAL FACTS PERTAINING TO ANY GROUND RAISED BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSOLIDAT ED OPINION THAT THE LEGAL ISSUED RAISED IN BOTH THE YE ARS BEFORE US NEED TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE AO SO THAT HE CAN DECIDE THEM AFRESH AFTER AFFORDIN G REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DO ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS AS WELL AS C.O. TO THE F ILE OF THE A.O. AS DIRECTED ABOVE AND TREAT THE LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED THEREIN AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 9 PURPOSES ONLY. THUS, THE APPEALS AS WELL AS C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REOPE NING IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE A O GOT NO REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TA X HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ALL THESE CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDING THE REOPENING BASED ON BO RROWED SATISFACTION AND ON CHANGE OF OPINION BUT THE ISSUE OF NON SUPPLY OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO WAS NOT SET AS IDE BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE RECORD OF THE AO. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEALS THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING AND WERE SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION HAS BEEN CULLED OUT BY THE AO AS REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE 15 AS UNDER:- 1.THE AO HAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARG EABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT THAT AO HAD NOT RECORDED ANY REASO NS FOR REOPENING. 2.THE ASSESSEE ARGUED BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF 'BORROWED SATISFACTION' AND ALSO 'CHANGE OF OPINION'. ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 10 3. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT T HAT THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN REOPENED BY ISSUE OF NOTICES BE YOND 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR S.' FROM THESE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DURING THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THA T THE ASSESSEE RAISED ANY ISSUE IN NON SUPPLY OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO. THE ONLY QUESTION WHICH WAS RAISED IS THAT THE AO HAS NOT RE CORDED ANY REASONS FOR REOPENING HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS REPRODUCED REASONS RECORDED IN THE ORDER PASSED IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS AS UNDER:- REASONS FOR THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT IN THE CASE OF PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. A.Y. 94-95. 1. THE LEGIBLE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 30.08.2 000 WAS RECEIVED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF ADMISS ION OF APPLICATION BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, OF SHRI V .K. BHARGAVA, CMD, PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. ON 23.05.2000. PARA-II OF T HE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE TO PUN SUMI INDIA LTD., PUNSUMI FOILS & COMPONENTS LTD. SHRI D. K. BHARGAVA, PUNEET BHARGAVA AND MADHU BHARGAVA FOR VIOLATING FE RA PROVISIONS STATES AS UNDER. AND WHEREAS IT FURTHER APPEARS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 90-91 TO 95-96, M/S. PUNSUMI IN DIA LTD. AND M/S. PUNSUMI FOILS & COMPONENTS LTD., JAIPUR WHILE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORTS OF RAW MATERIAL AND MACHINE RY ETC. FROM JAPAN, OTHERWISE REMITTED FOREIGN EXCHANGE BY INCRE ASING ACTUAL VALUE OF GOODS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1.41 CRORES APPROX IMATELY AND ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 11 AS PER SECRET PLAN AND UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN MR. V. K. BHARGAVA, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE SAID COMPANY AND THE FOREI GN SUPPLIER AS AFORESAID, THE SAID EXCESS REMITTANCE WAS OTHERW ISE ACQUIRED BY SHRI V.K. BHARGAVA UNDER THE COLOUR OF OOTHMISSI ON BUT LATTER ON BROUGHT INTO INDIA OVER A PERIOD OF TIME UNDER T HE GARB OF CREDITS IN THE NRE ACCOUNT, DECLARATION UNDER IMMUN ITY SCHEME AND PAYMENTS RECEIVED TOWARDS ALLOTMENT OF SHARES T O NRIS (EXCEPT AN AMOUNT OF US$ 13300) OTHERWISE TRANSFERR ED TO USA AND PAID TO SHRI PUNEET BHARGAVA, A PERSON RESIDENT OUTSIDE INDIA AND SPENT TOWARDS BENEFITS OF SHRI V.K. BHARGAVA AN D AS MENTIONED IN PARA-5 OF THIS MEMORANDUM WITH ANY GEN ERAL OR SPECIAL PERMISSION OF RBI. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE HAS ISSUED THE MEMORANDUM O N THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED OF SHRI V.K. BHARG AVA ON VARIOUS DATES, IN MY VIEW, AS THE MEMORANDUM STATES THAT TH E COMPANY INFLATED THE ACTUAL PRICE OF THE GOODS IMPORTED, TH E AMOUNT OF COMMISSION RECEIVED BY V.K. BHARGAVA NEEDS TO BE RE DUCED FROM THE PURCHASE PRICE SHOWN IN THIS A.Y. 93-94 BY THE COMPANY ON IMPORTS MADE FROM ERBIS ENGINEERING COMPANY OF JAPA N (PLEASE REFER TO COLUMN-6 ABOVE FOR FIGURES). STATEMENTS OF V.K. BHARGAVA BEFORE THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND THE MEMORAND UM ISSUED BY THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE DATED 30.08.2000 HAV E TO BE RELIED UPON, ALSO ORDER OF A.Y. 98-99 OF PUNSUMI IN DIA LTD. NEEDS TO BE REFERRED TO. 2. COPY OF PAGE-216 RECEIVED FORM THE CENTRAL EXCIS E & CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT, BHIWADI THROUGH LETTER DATED 23 .2.2000 ADDRESSED TO JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, JAIPUR MENTIONS AS UNDER: A) BILLS ENTERED IN OUR NAME BUT NOT PURCHASED BY U S YEAR 93-94 (I.E. A.Y.94-95) RS.3,16,023/- B) DISCOUNT/SALE-RETURN CREDITED BY YOU BUT NOT IN OUR BOOK. ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 12 93-94 (I.E. A.Y. 94-95) RS.27,743/- COPY OF PAGE-214 MENTIONS AS UNDER: D) DEBIT NOTE ISSUED BY US BUT NOT ENTERED BY YOU-A NNEXURE-D 93-94 (I.E. A.Y. 94-95) RS.8,35,092/- DURING SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS OF PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. F OR A.Y. 98-99, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EXPLAINED THAT THESE WERE PAPE RS RECEIVED FROM ONE AVM TRADERS, NEW DELHI. SO THEY WERE, WAS CONFIRMED ON INQUIRY FROM AVM TRADERS, NEW DELHI AND THE DISC REPANCIES FOUND WERE ADDED BACK. THEREFORE, IN THE RELEVANT A .Y. I.E. 94-95 NEEDS TO BE REOPENED TO CONFIRM THE SALES MADE BY P UNSUMI INDIA TO AVM TRADERS, NEW DELHI AND WHETHER THESE H AVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS, OF COURSE THESE SHOULD MATC H WITH THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM AVM TRADERS ABOUT THE PUR CHASE MADE BY THEM IN A.Y. 94-95 FROM PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. 3. IN A.Y. 98-99, ON THE BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS O F CEIB, THE INTEREST THAT THE COMPANY LOST ON MAKING A DEPO SIT OF RS.74,00,000/- WITH THE LAND LORD M/S. G.G. BHARGAV A, HUF, IN 92- 93 WAS ADDED BACK IN VIEW OF THE RATIO OF MADRAS HI GH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF K. SOMASUNDERAM REPORTED IN 238 ITR 939, AS THIS DEPOSIT WAS FOUND TO BE EXCESSIVE. FRO M A.Y. 93-94 TO A.Y. 97-98 THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON THIS DE POSIT NEEDS TO BE ADDED BACK IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY AND THERE FORE, THE ASSESSMENTS SHOULD BE REOPENED. EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE REASONS WERE DULY RECORDED ON 30.05.2001 A ND APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN RE CEIVED ON THE SAME DAY, I.E. ON 30.05.2001 VIDE LETTER NO. CIT/JP R/ITO(R&S)/2001- ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 13 02/301 DATED 30.05.2001. THEREFORE, IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS WERE DULY RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 31.05.2001. THUS, THE REASONS WERE ALSO APPROVED BY THE CIT AS PER COMMUNICATION DATED 30.05.2001 AS MENTIONED BY THE AO BUT THERE IS NO QUARREL ON T HE POINT THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMANDED THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOP ENING OF THE ASSESSMENT THEN THE AO IS DUTY BOUND TO SUPPLY THE REASONS AND DISPOSED OFF THE OBJECTIONS IF ANY FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT PRIOR TO THE REASS ESSMENT ORDER TO BE PASSED BY THE AO. THOUGH THERE IS NO PROVISION IN T HE ACT FOR SUPPLY OF REASONS HOWEVER, BY CONSIDERING THE SCHEME OF THE P ROVISIONS OF REOPENING AND REASSESSMENT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF G.K.N. DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. V. ITO(SUPRA) HAS LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLE THAT RECORDE D REASONS MUST BE FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT FOR REASONS. IT IS NOT EMPTY FORMALITY BUT THE PURPOSE IS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO FILE OBJECTION TO THE SAME BEFORE T HE AO. THEREFORE, RECORDING THE REASONS AND FURNISHING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE ARE MANDATORY SO AS TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE OBJECTIONS IF ANY AND DECIDE T HE SAME BEFORE ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 14 COMPLETING THE REASSESSMENT. THE DISPOSAL OF THE OB JECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE NOTICE ISSUED U/ S 148 OF THE ACT IS A MANDATORY CONDITION WHICH GIVES JURISDICTI ON TO THE AO TO COMPLETE THE REASSESSMENT. THIS PROPOSITION OF L AW IS NOW SETTLED AND THEREFORE, BEFORE PASSING THE REASSESSM ENT ORDER THE AO IS REQUIRED TO DISPOSE OFF THE OBJECTION. HOWEVE R, IN THE CASE IN HAND SINCE NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL. THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF THE AO HOWEVER, THE MERITS O F THE REASSESSMENTS HAS ALREADY ATTAINED FINALITY AND THE REFORE, THIS SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS WERE ONLY ON THE LIMITED ISSU E DECIDING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING AND NOT THE VALID OF REAS SESSMENT FOR NOT DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTION BEFORE PASSING THE R EASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE AO WAS HAV ING A LIMITED JURISDICTION TO DISPOSE OFF THE ISSUE WHICH WAS REM ANDED FOR ADJUDICATION AND ACCORDINGLY THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING WAS DISPOSED OFF. HENCE, WE FIND THAT THE QUESTION OF NON SUPPLY OF REASONS DOES NOT AMANETS EITHER FROM THE ORDER O F THIS ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 15 TRIBUNAL DATED 28.02.2014 OR FROM THE OBJECTION RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SOME ARGUMENTS IN TH E PROCEEDINGS HOWEVER, ONCE THE REASONS RECORDED WERE REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE QUESTION OF NON SUPPLY OF REASONS STAND SETTLED. THE SET ASIDE ORDER IS NO T REASSESSMENT ORDER BUT ONLY DISPOSING OF THE OBJECT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. T HE REASSESSMENT ORDER HAS ALREADY ATTAINED FINALITY AS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL. IN THE S ECOND ROUND OF APPEAL WE CANNOT GO BEHIND THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUN AL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE A SSESSEES APPEAL IS NONEST AS NOT ARISING FROM THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING THE CHALLENGING THE VA LIDITY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED THE SATISFA CTION AS TO THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE REOPENING IS NOT BASED ON THE REASONS TO BELIEF BUT THE SAME ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 16 IS BASED ON THE BORROWED SATISFACTION AS THE AO HAS RECORD THE MEMORANDUM ISSUE BY THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTOR AS WEL L AS THE COMMUNICATION FROM CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOM DEPART MENT. SINCE, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE REOPENED AFTER EXPIRY O F 4 YEARS FROM THE END THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCL OSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSME NT THE REOPENING IS NOT VALID. THE LD. AR HAS FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH MENTION OR ALLEGATION IN THE REASO NS RECORDED BY THE AO THEREFORE, THE REOPENING WITHOUT JURISDIC TION AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIO N, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- NOKIA INDIA (P.) LTD. 251 TAXMANN 85 (DELHI) HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. VS. CIT 308 ITR 3 8. WEL INTERTRADE (P.) LTD. & ANR. VS. ITO 308 ITR 22. POYSHA INVESTMENTS (P.) LTD. VS. ITO 20 TAXMANN.COM 161. THE LD. AR HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROP ER APPROVAL BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AS THE APPROVAL IS ONLY MECHANICAL WITHOUT FULL APPLICATION OF MIND. ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 17 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CI T(A) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL AND HAS FOLLOWED VA RIOUS DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURTS. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALL ENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY RAISING THE CONTENTI ON THAT IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 1993-94 AND 1995-96 THE REOPENING I S AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR S AND THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ALLEGATION IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/ S 148 THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT DUE TO FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE REASSESSMENT. THUS, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING HAS BEEN HIT BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WE DO N OT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR IN SO FAR AS THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE A.O. FOR REOPENING CLEARLY SHOWS TH AT DURING THE A.Y. 1993-94 AND 1995-96, THE ASSESSEE HAS IMPORTED RAW MATERIAL AND MACHINERY FROM JAPAN WHEREIN FOREIGN EXCHANGE WAS R EMITTED BY ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 18 INCREASING THE VALUE OF GOODS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1. 41 CRORES (IN A.Y. 1995-96) AND AS PER THE SECRET PLAN AND UNDERSTANDI NG BETWEEN SHRI V.K. BHARGAVA, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY AND THE FOREIGN SUPPLIER, THE SAID EXCESS REMITTANCE WAS OT HERWISE ACQUIRED BY SHRI V.K. BHARGAVA UNDER THE COLOUR OF COMMISSION A ND LATER ON BROUGHT INTO THE INDIA OVER A PERIOD OF TIME UNDER THE GARB OF CREDITS IN THE NRIE ACCOUNT, DECLARATION UNDER IMMUNITY SCHEME AND PAYMENT RECEIVED TOWARDS ALLOTMENT OF SHARES TO THE NRI. TH E A.O. ALSO OBSERVED IN THE REASONS THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE B Y U.S. COMPANY TO SHRI PUNIT BHARGAVA, A PERSON RESIDENT OUTSIDE I NDIA AND SPENT TOWARDS BENEFIT OF SHRI V.K. BHARGAVA. THUS, BY WRO NGLY CLAIMING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, INFLATED PURCHASES OVER AND ABOVE THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASES, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE F ULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS PER THE REASONS RECOR DED, THE A.O. ALSO FOUND THAT THERE WAS BILLS IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT NO PURCHASES WERE AFFECTED, DEBIT NOTE ISSUED BUT NOT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS, CHEQUES ISSUED BUT NOT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS IN THE A.Y. 1995- 96. SIMILARLY, IN THE A.Y. 1993-94, THERE WAS FINDI NG THAT THE PURCHASES OF RS. 1,68,427/- WAS ENTERED IN THE BOOKS BUT NO A CTUAL PURCHASES ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 19 WERE MADE. THUS, FROM THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOP ENING, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME DUE TO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL F ACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. MERELY BECAUSE THE A.O. HAS NOT MENTION ED SUCH FAILURE IN THE NOTICE SO ISSUED U/S 148 WILL NOT MAKE THE ASSE SSEE ENTITLED TO TAKE BENEFIT OF PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WHICH CLEARLY SAYS THAT NON FAILURE OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT IS PREREQUISITE FOR EXONERATING THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. EVEN AS PER EXPL ANATION-1 TO SECTION 147 PRODUCTION BEFORE THE A.O. OF ACCOUNT BOOKS OR OTHER EVIDENCE FROM WHICH MATERIAL EVIDENCE COULD, WITH DUE DILIGENCE H AVE BEEN DISCOVERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL NOT NECESSARILY AMOUN T TO DISCLOSURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147. THEREF ORE, THE CONDITION WHICH EMPOWERS THE A.O. TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT DI D EXIST IN THE PRESENT CASE AS HE COULD HAVE ENTERTAINED A REASONA BLE BELIEF THAT MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF INCO ME FOR THE YEARS IN QUESTION WERE NOT TRULY AND FULLY DISCLOSED AND THE RE WAS AN ESCAPEMENT OF TAX IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF OUR VIEW I S SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F KANTAMANI VENKATA NARAYAN & SONS 63 ITR 638. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 20 REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) EVEN A FTER FOUR YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS JU STIFIED SINCE THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FUL LY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 AND 1995-96 UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS PERT INENT TO MENTION HERE THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. IN BOT H THE YEARS AFTER REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN NOT ONLY CONFIR MED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BUT ALSO BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE HOLD ACCORDINGL Y. 9.1 AS REGARDS THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 SINCE THERE WAS NO ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) THEREFORE, THE SAID REOPENING IS NOT HIT BY THE PRO VISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND HENCE, IT CANNOT BE HELD INVALID DUE TO ABSENCE OF THE ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR TH E ASSESSMENT. FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR WE WILL EXAMINE THE VALIDI TY OF REOPENING IN THE CONTEST OF OTHER CONTENTIONS RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEING THE AO HAVE NO REASONS TO BELIEF THA T THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THE RE OPENING IS BASED ON BORROWED SATISFACTION. WE FIND THAT THE RE ASONS ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 21 RECORDED BY THE AO ITSELF CLEARLY MADE OUT A CASE O F FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ERBIS ENGINEERI NG COMPANY OF JAPAN AND THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT WAS PA ID/REMITTED TO SHRI V.K. BHARGAVA, CMD OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS ALSO APPROACHED THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AGAINST THE ME MORANDUM ISSUE BY THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTOR. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THERE WERE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHAS ES, DISCOUNT OF RETURN/ SALES AS WELL AS SOME DEBIT NOTE WERE AL SO ISSUED WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. T HESE TRANSACTIONS WERE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ONE AVM TRADERS, NEW DELHI AS FOUND BY THE EXCISE AND CUSTOM DEPARTM ENT. EVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99, THE AO DETECTED ALL THESE IRREGULARITIES O F UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS AND RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. THUS THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 IS NOT MERELY BASED ON THE MEMORANDUM OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTOR BUT IT IS ALSO B ASED ON THE MATERIAL FOUND BY THE AO DURING THE INQUIRY CONDUCT ED IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WHICH R EVEALS ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 22 CERTAIN UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTION WITH AVM TRADERS CO NSTITUTE A TANGIBLE MATERIAL FORMING TO BELIEF THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND A NY MERITS OR SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REOPENING IS BASED ON BORROWED SATISFACTION OR THERE WERE NO REASONS TO BELIEF THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION OF AP PROVAL GRANTED BY THE CIT WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE APPROVAL AND THEREFORE, ONCE THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF MANIFEST T HE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME THEN THE SAID APPROVAL CANNOT BE HELD MEC HANICAL. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER: - (C) IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT TH E REASONS TO BELIEF WERE RECORDED ON THE BASIS OF BORROWED SATISFACTION. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT INFORMATION HA S BEEN RECEIVED BY THE AO ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME B Y THE APPELLANT AND AFTER ANALYZING THE SAME, THE AO HAS INDEPENDENT REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAD E SCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN A NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PROCEEDINGS U /S 147 OF THE ACT COULD BE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF INVES TIGATION REPORT. ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 23 ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 24 ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 25 ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 26 ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 27 ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 28 ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 29 ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 30 ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 31 ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITA NO.1202 TO 1204/JP/2018 PUNSUMI INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 32 OF THE LD. CIT(A) SO FAR AS THE REOPENING OF THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS OF ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995-96 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/07/2019. SD/- SD/- JESK LH0 KEKZ FOT; IKY JKO (RAMESH. C. SHARMA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 05/07/2019. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- PUNSUMI INDIA LTD., JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 1202 TO 1204/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR