M/s. Mahednrakumar & Bros., Nashik V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 123/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1603 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Rectification of order; Audit objection; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Revised return; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 148; 139

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM / ITA NO.123/PN/2015 ! ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S MAHENDRAKUMAR AND BROS, 961, BHIKUSA LANE, MAIN ROAD, NASHIK 422 001 . / APPELLANT PAN: AAKFM7261K VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), NASHIK . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE DATE OF HEARING : 29.06.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.06.2016 # / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A)-I, NASHIK, DATED 24.12.2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). ITA NO.123/PN/2015 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A) -1, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.69,000. THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A) -1, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF INTEREST OF RS. 69,000 ON THE ADVANCE OF RS.5,75,000 WHEN THE ADVANCE WAS MADE FROM DENA BANK WHEREIN NO INTEREST-BEARING FUND IS AVAIL ABLE. THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A)- 1, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD AMPLE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND CAPITAL OF PARTNERS. THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A)- 1, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE AND THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS, HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS. 42,000 MAY ALSO BE DELETED AS THE AMOUNT WAS OFFERED TO PURCHASE PEACE. NO EVIDENCE IS BROU GHT ON RECORDS. THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED . WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A)- 1, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING OF ASSESSMEN T WHEN THERE WAS CHANGE IN OPINION AND THAT TOO AFTER FOUR YEAR WHEN THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL M ATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES MAY PLE ASE BE CANCELLED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A)- 1, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING OF ASSESSMEN T ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION. THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES MAY PLEA SE BE CANCELLED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A)- 1, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING OF ASSESSMEN T WHEN SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED IN RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS. THE ACTION AMO UNTS TO CHANGE OF OPINION. THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES MAY PLEASE BE CANCE LLED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A)- 1, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING OF ASSESSMEN T WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) AN D 154 AND NO NEW FACTS HAVE COME ON RECORDS BETWEEN THE ASSESSMENT/R ECTIFICATION, ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 CANNOT BE TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF C HANGE IN OPINION. THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED . WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE ITA NO.123/PN/2015 3 9. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A)- 1, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE DECISIONS CITED. THE DECISIONS MAY PLEASE BE CONSIDERED IN IT S PROPER AND PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE AND THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED. 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEA L IN ALTERNATE TO EACH OTHER. THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS AGAINST THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT, AFT ER FOUR YEARS WHEN THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCL OSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE I S ALSO AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.69,000/- AND 42,000/-. 4. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING ON 15.06.2016 AND 29.06.2016 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE AND BECAUSE OF THE SMALLNESS OF ISSUE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. 5. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5 ,650/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) (A) OF THE ACT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND ORDER UNDE R SECTION 143(3) WAS PASSED ON TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.29,220/- ON 1 7.07.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION OF RECORDS, POINT S THAT THE ISSUE OF NON- CHARGING OF INTEREST ON ADVANCE OF RS.6,00,000/- AS AGAINST PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOAN CAME TO HIS NOTICE. FURTHER, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.5,75,000/- WAS NOT ON RE CORD AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED NET SALES AFTER DEDUCTING DIS COUNT OF RS.99,960/- BUT NO EVIDENCE OF DISCOUNT GIVEN WAS ON RECORD. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER, ITA NO.123/PN/2015 4 RECORDED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT A FTER RECEIVING THE PERMISSION FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX I, NASHIK ON 20.12.2012 AND ISSUED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 21.12.20 12. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE STATED THAT THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME W AS FILED ON 31.10.2007 BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED FOR REASONS RECORDED FOR RE OPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED WERE SENT TO THE A SSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 29.01.2013. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2 ) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE PAYM ENT OF INTEREST @ 12% ON UNSECURED LOAN TO SHRI SHRIPAL R. SHAH, SON OF THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND ALSO AN ADVANCE OF RS.6,00,000/- GIVEN TO HIM, WHICH WAS INTEREST-FREE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS TO WHY THE INT EREST @ 12% ON RS.6,00,000/- AMOUNTING TO RS.72,000/- SHOULD NOT B E DISALLOWED. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE BANK ACCO UNT EXTRACT OF CURRENT ACCOUNT IN DENA BANK FROM WHERE LOAN WAS GIVEN IN T HE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2005 AND ALSO REQUESTED THAT THE INTEREST TO BE DISALLOW ED WAS TO BE COMPUTED FOR 7 MONTHS. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.42,000/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE. 6. ANOTHER ISSUE OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN AN ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF THE FLAT IN TH E NAME OF SHRI RAMESH C. SHAH, PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. COPY OF THE PU RCHASE DEED DATED 05.08.2004 WAS FILED. IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR, THE BALANCE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAMESH C. SHAH. THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADVANCE GIVEN TO THE PERSON WAS WITHO UT CHARGING ANY INTEREST AND HENCE INTEREST @ 12% WAS TO BE DISALLOWED. SIN CE THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ITA NO.123/PN/2015 5 INTEREST @ 12% ON THE UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN, THUS, D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.69,000/- WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD A DOPTED THE DUE PROCEDURE IN ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 O F THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS CHANGE OF OPINION WAS H ELD TO BE NOT CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE ON THE ONE HAND HAD PAID INTEREST OF RS.32 ,630/- TO SHRI SHRIPAL R. SHAH WHO WAS SON OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSE SSEE FIRM BUT ON THE OTHER HAND DID NOT CHARGE ANY INTEREST ON RS.6,00,000/- T HAT IT HAD ADVANCED TO HIM. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED RS.5,75,000 /-IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAMESH C. SHAH, ONE OF THE PARTNERS FOR MAKING ADVANCE TO ONE M/S ARCHIT BUILDERS. DESPITE CLAUSE 8(5) OF THE PARTNE RSHIP DEED DATED 15.03.1993 THAT INTEREST @ 18% WOULD BE CHARGED ON THE DEBIT B ALANCE, NO INTEREST ON RS.5,75,000/- WAS CHARGED FROM SHRI RAMESH C. SHAH. IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAMESH C. SHAH, THERE WAS OPENING DEBIT BAL ANCE OF RS.70,414/- AND AS AGAINST WHICH FURTHER SUM OF RS.5,75,000/- WAS G IVEN ON HIS BEHALF TO M/S ARCHIT BUILDERS. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHARGING INTEREST @ 12% ON ADVANCE OF RS.5,75,000/- ALSO. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE AGREED FOR CHARGING OF INTEREST OF RS.42,000/- ON ADVANCE OF R S.6,00,000/- GIVEN TO SHRI SHRIPAL R. SHAH. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT IT HAD GIVEN ADVANCES OUT OF INTEREST-FREE FUNDS WAS FOUND CONTRARY TO TH E FACTS GIVEN IN THE BALANCE SHEET BY THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS PAYING INTEREST TO THE PARTNERS ON THEIR CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND OTHER PERSONS ON THEIR UNSECURED LOANS. HENCE, THERE WERE NO INTEREST-FREE FUNDS AV AILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FIRM. IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH THERE WAS NO SUPPORT TO THE CONTENTIONS THAT INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES TO SHRI SHRIPAL R. SHAH AND M/S ARCHIT BUILDERS. IN VIEW ITA NO.123/PN/2015 6 THEREOF, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING O FFICER IN MAKING THAT ADDITION OF RS.42,000/- AND RS.69,000/-. 8. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A). 9. THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS NOT WARRANTED AS N O NEW FACTS HAD COME ON RECORD WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE REOPENING AFTER FOUR YEARS, ESPECIALLY, WHEN THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCL OSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE H AS PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) OF THE ACT WHICH IS DATED 17.07.2008. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID ORDER DO ES REFLECT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.13,43,348/- RECEIVED FROM 10 P ERSONS AGAINST WHICH INTEREST OF RS.1,42,013/- WAS PAID. THE ASSESSEE A LSO FILED CONFIRMATION FOR THOSE LOANS. THE FACTUM OF ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN TO SHRI SHRIPAL R. SHAH AND ALSO THE ADVANCE TO M/S ARCHIT BUILDERS WAS REFLECT ED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) ALSO RECOGNIZES THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN M/S ARCHIT BUILDERS AS ONE OF ITS SUNDRY DEBT ORS. SIMILARLY, THE LOAN ADVANCED TO SHRI SHRIPAL R. SHAH OF RS.6,00,000/- W AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ONCE, THE ORIGIN AL ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF IT ACT BY AN ORDER PASSED ON 17.07.2008, THEREAFTER RECTIFICATION ORDER UNDER SE CTION 154 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 24.08.2009 IN VIEW OF THE OBJECTIONS RAIS ED BY THE AUDIT PARTY. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE TH E CIT(A), WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) HAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE OF CHARGING OF INTEREST ON THE ADVANCES MADE TO SHRI SHRIPAL R. SHAH AND M/ S ARCHIT BUILDERS WAS ITA NO.123/PN/2015 7 RAISED BY THE AUDIT PARTY AND THE INITIALLY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154 WAS ISSUED FOR THE SAME REASON. HOWEVER, THE SAID PROCEEDINGS WERE DROPPED AND ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED. 10. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, IT IS PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN Y INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY ASSESS OR RE- ASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGE ABLE TO TAX, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SU BSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED UND ER SECTION 143(3), NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INC OME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR, BY THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN R ESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT, FOR THAT ASSESSMENT Y EAR. APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROVISO TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT CASE WHERE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3), THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION IS THAT RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CAN BE IN ITIATED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT YEAR, IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FAC TS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT EMPOWERED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER CAN REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT PROVIDED THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS R EASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BASED ON TANGIBLE MAT ERIAL. THERE SHOULD BE ITA NO.123/PN/2015 8 A LIVE LINK BETWEEN THE MATERIAL FOUND AND THE REAS ONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. 11. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH HAS COME TO H IS NOTICE AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE PERUSAL OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 ITSELF REVEALS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISED THE ISSUE ON VERIFICATION OF RECORDS, WHEREIN IT WA S FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST TO SHRI SHRIPAL R. SHAH BUT HAS NOT C HARGED INTEREST ON ADVANCE GIVEN TO HIM AND FURTHER THERE WAS INVESTMENT WITH M/S ARCHIT BUILDERS. THE DECLARATION IN THIS REGARD WERE ADMITTEDLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BALANCE SHEET AND WAS PART OF ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS AWARE OF THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOAN RAISED FROM 10 PERS ONS AND HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOU NT OF THE INTEREST CHARGEABLE ON INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES. THE ACTION U NDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED AFTER THE AUDIT PARTY POINTED OUT THE AFORESAID DEFECTS WHICH WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ISSUE OF NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE SAID PROCEEDINGS WERE DROPPED. THEREAFTER THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. I FIND NO MERIT IN INVOKING THE JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF REC ORDING THE REASONS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND ALSO ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, WHERE THE ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF REVE NUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FAC TS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER LACKS THE JURISDICTION TO INITIATE THE REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF, I QUASH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED BY THE ASSESSING ITA NO.123/PN/2015 9 OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE ADMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ADDITION O F RS.42,000/- DOES NOT STAND AS I HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE ON JURISD ICTION ITSELF. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, THUS ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 30 TH JUNE, 2016 . ! #$%&'()(& / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : THE APPELLANT; THE RESPONDENT; ' ' # () THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK; ' ' # THE CIT-I, NASHIK &'( ))*+, ' *+ , , - . // / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; (01 2 / GUARD FILE. #! / BY ORDER & ) // TRUE COPY // 345 )! *6 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ' *+ , ITAT, PUNE