A.C.I.T Cir - 1,Hooghly, Hooghly V. M/s Jairam Distributors, Hooghly

ITA 1255/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4926 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S M DAS JCIT LD
• Assessee Lawyers: V N DUTTA LD
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Block assessment; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1255/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S. JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, K OLKATA BEFORE : SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S.S VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO. 1255/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 A.C.I.T, CIR-1, HOOGHLY VS. M/S. JAIRAM DISTR IBUTORS PAN: AACFJ 18 08K (APPELLANT) (RESPON DENT) FOR THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT : SHRI S.M.DAS, JCIT, LD.DR FOR THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: SHRI V.N DUTTA, ADVOCATE, LD.AR DATE OF HEARING: 01-03-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13- 05-20 15 ORDER SHRI S.S VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 129/CIT(A)-XXXV I/KOL/ACIT, CIRCLE- 1/HOOGHLY./2011-12 DATED 22-01-2013 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE LD. AO U/S 147/144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ). 1.1 THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE WITH A DE LAY OF 35 DAYS. FOR WHICH THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE CONDONATION PETITION. AFT ER PERUSING THE SAME AND HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS:- 1. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN QUAS HING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S.147 WHICH RESULTED IN D ELETING OF RS.28,91,126/-. 2. THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT RELYING ON THE HON 'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISION IN 294 ITR 233 (20 07)(SC) IN THE ITA NO.1255/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S. JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS 2 MATTER OF NON-ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) AS NOTICE U/S.148 CLEARLY SAYS THAT HIS CASE WOULD BE REASSESSED FOR WHICH FRESH R ETURN IS INVITED. 3. THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT EXAMINING THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE WAS REOPENED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS' TIME FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SO, THE 1 ST PROVISO OF SEC. 147 WOULD NOT APPLY. 4. THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN RE LYING ON THE APEX COURT DECISION WHICH IS A BLOCK ASSESSMENT CASE AND NOT SIMILAR TO THE PRESENT CASE. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR ABR OGATE ANY GROUND. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICINE S. ORIGINALLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 31-12-2007 U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE TOTAL INCOME DETERMINED AT RS.69,52,470/-. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESS EE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE GOT RELIEF OF RS.61,78,960/- BY AN ORDER DATED 22-01-2009 AS AGAINST THE ABOVE DETERMINED IN COME BY THE AO. THE REVISED TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.7,73,510/-. THEREAFTER, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 ON 04-01-2010 ON TWO GROUNDS THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID EXCESS REMUNERATION TO ITS PARTNERS FOR RS. 96,000/- AND NO TDS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN TIME. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR INFORMATION RE GARDING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT AND OBJECTED FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE REASON AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE EXCES S REMUNERATION PAID TO ITS PARTNERS UNDER ITS AMENDED PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 0 7-04-2001, WHEREIN IT HAD ALLOWED TO DISBURSE THE PARTNERS REMUNERATION OF RS.1,92,000/- PER ANUM. IN RESPECT OF NON DEPOSIT OF TDS AMOUNT IN TIME THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED TDS AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,47,448/- ON 28-06-200, WHERE IT ITA NO.1255/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S. JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS 3 REQUIRES TO BE PAID ON 31-05-2005 AS SPECIFIED UNDE R RULE 30(1) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THEREFORE, THE AO ADDED THE ENTIRE COMMI SSION PAYMENT OF RS. 28,91,126/- ON WHICH TDS DEDUCTED BUT DEPOSITED BE LATEDLY TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 4. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE RE-OPENED U/S. 147 WITHOUT I SSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, CONTENDED THAT THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE SAID SUBMISSION DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) SOUGHT FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO TO VERIFY WHETHER THE AO HAD ISS UED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 147 OF T HE ACT. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT NO ENTRY WAS MADE ON THE NOTE SHEET OF THE AO RECO RDS AND HELD THAT NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT A ND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, KOLK ATA IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS- M/S. I.S LEATHER IN ITA NO.1533/KOL/2011 AND QUASHE D THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PASSED BY THE AO U/S.147/144 OF THE ACT DATED 23-07-2010. 5. THEREFORE, THE ONLY ISSUE IS TO BE DECIDED IN TH IS APPEAL OF REVENUE AS TO WHETHER THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IS NECESSARY TO EXERCISE POWER U/S. 147 OF THE ACT BY THE AO. 6. THE LD.DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE HA S RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN QUASHING THE RE-ASSESSMENT. 7. HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S OBJECTED TO THE RE-OPENING OF ITA NO.1255/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S. JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS 4 ASSESSMENT VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 16-07-2010 BEFORE THE AO. THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY FOLL OWING THE JUDGMENTS MENTIONED THEREIN COMPLETED THE RE-ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS U/S. 147/148 OF THE ACT BY MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION U/S. 40(A)(IA). WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE LD. CITA) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TDS ON COMMIS SION PAYMENT WAS DULY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD.AO. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO DECIDE WHETHER THE RE-ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 IS MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT THEREBY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 147. 8. NOW, WE MAY REFER TO THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE C ASE OF (SUPRA) AS RELIED BY THE CIT-A. IN THAT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE I SSUE THAT WHETHER THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS REQUIRED DURING THE PENDENCY OF RE-A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL SUPRA PASSED BY FOLLOWING ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHEELA CHOPRA VS. ITO IN IT A NO. 84/KOL/2012 FOR THE A.Y 2005-06 DATED 21-06-2012. IT IS NOTICED THAT TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHEELA CHOPRA SUPRA HAS DISCUSSED THE CASE LAW REPORTED IN (2002) 255 I TR 220 IN THE CASE OF VIPAN KHANNA VS. CIT OF HONBLE PUN JAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. 9. AS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF M/S . I.S. LEATHER SUPRA RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BEL OW FOR THE SAKE CLARITY:- 3. WE HAVE HEAD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ORI GINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.10.2005, WHI CH WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 28.02.2007. THE REAFTER, THE REVENUE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 30.01.2008 I.E. BEYOND 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN AND I.E. ON 29. 10. 2005. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE NOTICE WAS WITHDRAWN BY AO ISSUING LETTER ITA NO.1255/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S. JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS 5 DATED 25.08.2008 STATING THAT THIS NOTICE WAS ISSUE D INADVERTENTLY. HOWEVER, THE AO IN SAME DAY I.E. 25.08.2008 ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT AND ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U /S. 148 OF THE ACT FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.10.2008. THESE ARE ADM ITTED AND UNDISPUTED FACTS. SUBSEQUENTLY, WE FIND FROM THE OR DERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND EVEN CONCEDED BY LD. OR THAT NO NO TICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT ISSUED IN THIS CASE WHEREAS ONLY NOTICE U/S. 143(2)(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOW SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST REVENUE BY COORD INATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHEELA CHOPRA VS. ITO, ITA NO.84/KOI/2012, AY 2005-06 DATED 21.06.2012 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HA S HELD AS UNDER: ' 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE T HROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. FIRST OF ALL WE FIND FRO M THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AO HAS CONSIDERED THE REPLY DATED 22.04. 2008 AND WHEREBY ASSESSEE VIDE POINT NO.4 HAS STATED AS UNDE R :- '4. THAT MY ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 2810312006 WHI CH WAS REVISED BY COMPUTATION RS.575,000/- MAY KINDLY BE T REATED AS RETURN FILED DISCLOSING INCOME RA. 575,0001- IN COMPLIANCE TO YOUR NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, YOUR HONOUR IS REQUES TED TO GIVE THE REASONS RECORDED WHICH PROMPTED YOU FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 AT YOUR EARLIEST.' FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS DEAR THAT AO HAS A CTED UPON THE REVISED COMPUTATION AS FILED IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 22.04.2008 AND PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER ACCORDINGLY. ONCE AO HAS ACTED UPON THE RETURN FILED BY ASSESSEE HE HAS ACTUALLY CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING OF RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, WHICH STIPULATES THE TIME LIMIT OF 30 DAYS AND EVEN THE REPLY IS BEYOND THAT PERIOD. ONCE AO HAS ACTED UPON THE R ETURN THERE IS NO OPTION EXCEPT TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT FOR FRAMING ASSESSMENT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A RE-ASSESSMENT U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF VIPAN KHANNA V S CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT H AS EXPLAINED THE IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE OF LAW IN RELATION TO POWER S OF AO U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND TIME LIMIT SET OUT THEREIN AS WELL AS U /S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN NOTE THAT NOTICE F OR SCRUTINY U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE ISSUED WITHIN 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF ITA NO.1255/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S. JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS 6 THE MONTH IN WHICH RETURN IS FILED AND IF IT IS NOT SO ISSUED THE AO CANNOT, NO DOUBT, EXERCISE HIS POWER U/S 147 OF THE ACT. BUT IT CANNOT BE DONE MERELY FOR SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN. WHERE T HE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 147 OF THE ACT ACCOMPANIED BY LETTER, IN DICATING THAT HE WANTS TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF CARRIAGE EXPENSES AND INCOME IN EACH OF THE TRUCK, BESIDES CHOCKING OF OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT AP ART FROM SUCH OTHER DETAILS, THERE WAS NO ABSOLUTE INFERENCE OF A NY ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. IN SUCH CASE NOTICE HAS TO BE ISSUED ONLY U /S 143(2) OF THE ACT AND SECTION 147 IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF RIGHT TO FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THAT TH ERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PURPOSE IN LAYING DOING THE TIME LIMIT OF O NE YEAR. EVEN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE BOARD CIRCULA R NO.549 OF 31.10.1989 REPORTED IN [1990] 182 ITR STATUTE 1 EXP LAINING THE NEW PROCEDURE W.E.F. 1.4.1989, WHEREIN THE BOARD HAS IN UNMISTAKABLE TERMS ADVISED ITS OFFICERS THAT, IF THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT BEEN SERVED WITH A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE STIP ULATED TIME HE CAN TAKE IT THAT HIS RETURN OF INCOME HAS BECOME FINAL AND NO SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS CAN BE STARTED AFTER THAT. IN RESPONSE TO THE PROCEDURE FOR COMPLIANCE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, WE FIND HON' BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS HOTEL BLUE MOON (2010) 321 ITR 362 (9:) HAS HELD THAT THE PROCEDURE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IS MANDATO RY AND HAS TO BE FOLLOWED FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT . THE HON' BLE APEX COURT HAS EMPHASIZED AS UNDER :- (I) WHILE NOTICE U/S 143 (2) IS NOR NECESSARY IF TH E AO ACCEPTS THE RETURN AS FILED, THE NOTICE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED T IME IS MANDATORY IF THE AO PROPOSES TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC R. W. S. 143 (3). OMISSION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS NOT A PROCED URAL IRREGULARITY AND THE SAME IS NOT CURABLE AND, THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH. IF THE INTENTION OF THE L EGISLATURE WAS TO EXCLUDE THE PROVISIONS OF S. 143(2). THE LEGISLATUR E WOULD HAVE INDICATED THAT. (II) IN CIRCULAR NO. 71 7 DATED 14. 8.1995 THE CBDT HAS DIRECTED THAT THE AO 'SHALL PROCEED TO DETERMINE THE UNDISC LOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD AND THE PROVISIONS OF S. 142. SUB- S (2) AND (3) OF S. 143 AND S. 144 SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY'. THIS CIRCU LAR CLARIFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW IN RESPECT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143 (2). THE CIRCULAR IS BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENT THOUGH NOT ON THE COURT. ITA NO.1255/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S. JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS 7 (III) A SEARCH IS THE SINE QUA NON FOR A BLOCK ASSE SSMENT UNDER CH. XIV-B. A BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS IN ADDITION TO REGULAR ASSESSMENTS PROCEEDINGS AND NOT IN SUBSTITUTION THEREOF. THE SC OPE AND AMBIT OF A BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS LIMITED TO MATERIALS UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH AND CAN ONLY BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION. 5.1. FURTHER THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS C. PALANIAPPAN (2006) 284 ITR 257 (MAD) WHILE CONSIDER ING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 OF THE A CT QUA THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) THE ACT HAS HELD AS U NDER :- ' WE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FAD THAT THE ASSESSMENT WA S COMPLETED ONLY UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE REOPE NING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT TO CONSIDER THE CORRECT QUANTUM OF INTEREST ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION IN COMPU TING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS CORRECT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOR FURNISHED RELEVANT FACTS AND EVIDENCE ALONG WITH THE RETURN. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN ITS CONCLUSION THAT IN THE CASE OF REOPENED ASSESSMENT, ISSUE OF N OTICE UNDER SECTION ON 143 (2) OF THE ACT WITHIN 12 MONTHS IS STATUTORY AND THE TRIBUNAL WAS ALSO WRONG IN DELETING THE ISSUE ON TECHNICAL G ROUNDS WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE IN RESPECT OF QUESTION NO. 1, WE FIND THAT ON A SIM ILAR ISSUE WHICH CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN CIT V. M CHELLAPPAN [2 006] 281 ITR 444, A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, IN WHICH ONE O F US WAS A PARTY (P. D. DINAKARAN J.) APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN B Y THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN VIPAN KHANNA V. CIT[2002] 255 1TR220 (P & H), HELD AS FOLLOWS (PAGE 445): ' ... ADMITTEDLY, NO NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) O F THE ACT WERE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEES WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIO D OF TWELVE MONTHS AND, THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143 O F THE ACT COME TO AN END AND THE MATTER BECOMES FINAL' ITA NO.1255/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S. JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS 8 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE FIRST QUESTION NOW RAISED , THEREFORE, STANDS CONCLUDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.' 5.2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ADMITTED FACTS, AS WELL A S RATIO LAID IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS HOTEL BLUE MOON (SUPRA) AND CIT VS C. PALANIAPPAN (SUPRA), THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF T HE ACT WAS ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE DURING THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING U/S 148 OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT RE-ASSESSME NT FRAMED WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND HENCE QUASHED.' SINCE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION CI TED SUPRA, WE QUASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ASSESSEE' S CO IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO FURNISH REASONS REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE AC T AND OBJECTED FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE REASON AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 16-07-2010. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE RE-OPENED U/S. 147 WITHOUT ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN FIRST APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) SOUGHT FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO TO VERIFY WHET HER THE AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT NO ENTRY WAS MADE ON THE NOTE SHEET OF THE AO RECORDS AND HELD THAT NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT SUPRA HELD THAT IF THE AO FAILS TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE , THEN, THE AO CANNOT, NO DOUBT, EXERCISE HIS POWER U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE H ON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS C. PALANIAPPAN CONSIDERED THE RA TIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON' BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS HOTEL BLUE MOO N AND HELD DURING THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THAT IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT FRAMED WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. ITA NO.1255/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S. JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS 9 THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASES BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND THE HON'BLE MADRA S HIGH COURT ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND AND THE RATIO THER EON LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE COURTS ARE BEING FOLLOWED BY THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL AS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS- M/S. I.S LEAT HER SUPRA, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED B Y THE REVENUE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13 /05/ 2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.. THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT: THE ASSISTANT COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AAYKAR BHAWAN, G.T ROAD, KHADINA MORE, C HINSURAH, HOOGHLY-712101. 2 THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE- M/S. JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS 10A, LENIN SARANI, SERAMPORE, P.O MALLICK PARA, DISTRICT: HOOGHLY-712203. 3 /THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT REGISTRAR *PRADIP SPS SD/- P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- S.S VISWANETHRA, RAVI, J JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 13 /05 /2016