SHODIMAN INVESTMENTS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1356/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8261 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 29-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Tangible material; Speculation loss; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 148; 132

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI , . . ! '# , ' $ BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM ITA NO.1356/MUM/2012: ASST.YEAR 2003-2004 SHODIMAN INVESTMENTS P. LTD. C/O, DILIP NANVATI, RATNA, 32, JAI HIND CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, 11 N.S. ROAD, JVPD, MUMBAI 400 049 PAN : AAGCS656J ! ! ! ! / VS. ITO WD 5(3)(2) AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG MUMBAI. 400 006 ( &' / // / APPELLANT) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT) &' * ** * + ' + ' + ' + ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NITESH JOSHI (AR) ()&' * + ' * + ' * + ' * + ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NEILPHILIP (DR) ! * ,-# / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 10.11.2014 ./0 * ,-# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :12.12.2014 '1 '1 '1 '1 / O R D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO ( JM) : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 10.01.2012 OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS; ON THE FACTS AND AS PER PROVISION OF LAW, THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS(HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT A) HAS ERRED I N; A. CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, AND B. REJECTING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. C. IN IGNORING AND OVERLOOKING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. II. ON THE FACTS AND AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW THE O RDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WAS U NJUST AND UNFAIR. III. ON THE FACTS AND AS PER PROVISION OF LAW THE C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE RE- ASSESSMENT U/S.147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3). IV. ON THE FACTS AND AS PER PROVISION OF LAW THE CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE TWICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN ST THE TRANSACTIONS OF SPECULATIVE LOSS WHICH WAS NOT SET OFF AGAINST ANY OTHER INCOME. ITA NO .1356/ MUM/2012 . 2 2. GROUND NO.1 TO 3 ARE REGARDING VALIDITY OF RE-AS SESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT AND TRADING IN SHARES AND DEBENTURES AND ALSO PARTNERS IN REGISTERED FIRM. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ITS RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 27.11.2003 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.11 ,736/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ACCEPTED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUE NTLY THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM ADIT(INVESTIGATION) UNIT-I, MUMBAI THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION BILLING ACTIVITIES PRO VIDED BY M/S. GOLDSTAR FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED. THE SAID INFORMATION WAS B ASED UPON THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION IN CASE OF M/S. GOLDSTAR FINVEST PRI VATE LIMITED, UPON OF THE SAID INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION UNIT TH E AO, REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148 DATED 30.03.20 10. IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 21.02.2004 IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS RETURN FILED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148, THE ASSESSEE HAS INTERA LIA OBJECTED TO THE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 24.12. 2010. THE AO REJECTED THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RE-ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO COMPLETED THE RE-ASSESSMENT U/S.147 READ WITH SECTI ON 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31 ST DECEMBER 2010 WHEREBY TAXED ALLEGED SPECULATION LOS S OF RS.67,10,511/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT. THE AO AL SO ADDED THE COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE CIT(A) INCLUDING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING. THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS VALID. 3. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SU BMITTED THAT THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE ADIT(INVESTIGATION), WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIN D. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE DO NOT SP ECIFY THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THEREBY THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAD THE REASON TO BELIEVE THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FALLS WI THIN THE MEANING OF SECTION ITA NO .1356/ MUM/2012 . 3 147. LD. AR HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT REASONS S UPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO INCOMPLETE AND ONLY AS PER THE DIRECTION OF TH IS TRIBUNAL THE AO HAS SUPPLIED THE FULL REASONS DURING THE PENDENCY OF TH IS APPEAL WHICH DOES NOT DISCLOSE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. TH US THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DO NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING THE ASS ESSMENT IN QUESTION. FURTHER THE REASONS ARE VAGUE WITHOUT INDICATING ANY INCOME ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE STATEMENT RECOR DED DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT ALLEGE ANY ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO DID NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CO NTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISION; (I) BAHADUR MOTILAL P. LTD. V. K.R. VISHWANATHAN, ITO, AND ANOTHER 183 ITR 80. (II) CIT VS. SFIL STOCK BROKING LTD. 325 ITR 285 (DEL HC) THUS THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED ITS MIND AT THE TIME OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT , THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RE WAS NO ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE AS THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ACCEPTED U/S.1 43(1). THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINA L ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATIO N RECEIVED FROM THE SEARCH CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF MR. MUKESH CHOKSI (M/S.G OLDSTAR FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITE),WHEREIN MR. MUKESH CHOKSI IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.131 ADMITTED THAT HE WAS PROVIDING ACCOMMODATING ENTRIES AND BOG US BILLS TO THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT MATERIAL TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX IN RESPECT OF THE SPECULATION LOS S SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE THROUG H M/S. GOLDSTAR FINVEST ITA NO .1356/ MUM/2012 . 4 PRIVATE LIMITED ARE BOGUS ENTRIES AS PROVIDED BY TH E SAID COMPANY. AT THE STAGE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT ON LY PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL AND SUFFICIENCY OF CORRECTNESS OF THE MATERIAL WAS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED. WHEN THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS AND COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW IN THE CASE WHERE NO SC RUTINY ASSESSMENT BUT THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) THEN THE REASONS RE CORDED BY THE AO BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WAS SUFFICIENT TO BELIEVE TH AT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SPECULATION LOSS ARI SEN OUT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES BY VIRTUE OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE RETURN OF THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO RECEIVED REPORT FROM DDIT(INVESTIGATION) UNIT-1( 4), MUMBAI. THE ASSESSEMENT WAS REOPENED IN PURSUANT TO THE REPORT OF THE DIT(INVESTIGATION). THE ASSESSEE DEMANDED THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE A O FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENT WHICH WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY T HE AO AS UNDER ; IT WAS INTIMATED THAT SEARCH ACTION WAS CONDUCTED U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT,1962 ON 25/11/2009. IN THE CASE OF MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT . LTD., WHERE IT IS FOUND SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTION TAKEN PLACE IN THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE COMPANY & ITS RELATED COMPANY. 6 . THE ABOVE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO DO NOT INDICAT E ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHAR ES BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BOGUS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ABOVE REASONS ARE NOT COMPLETE AS IT APPEARS FROM THE REASONS ITSELF THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN ASSESSSEE ONLY SELECTED PORTION OF THE REASONS RECORDED. AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE BENC H, THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THE COMPLETE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO WHICH READS AS UNDER; INTIMATION REGARDING RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S .147 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961K HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE ON 29.03.2010 FROM DDI T (INV.) UNIT 1(4) MUMBAI. IT WAS INTIMATED THAT SEARCH ACTION WAS CONDUCTED U /S.132 OF I.T. ACT 1961 ON 25.11.2009. IN THE CASE OF MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT . LTD., WHERE IT IS FOUND SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTION TAKEN PLACE IN THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE COMPANY &ITS RELATED ITA NO .1356/ MUM/2012 . 5 COMPANY. THE COPY OF SAID LETTER WHICH IS SELF EXPL ANATORY WHICH IS FORWARDED TO YOUR HONOUR. FROM VERIFICATION OF BLUE BOOK IT IS FOUND THAT THE RE IS NO SUCH ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED IN HIS CHARGE. SIMILARLY NO PAN NO. IS FURNISHED. H OWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS CHARGE & THE ACTION IS GOING B Y BAR BY ITS OF LIMITATION OF TIME. I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT O F THE INCOME WITHIN MEANING OF U/S.147 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. AS PER PROVISO OF SECTION 151(2) OF THE I.T. ACT NO NOTICE U/S.148 BE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BELOW THE RANK OF THE J.C. AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT A.Y. UNLESS THE JOINT CIT IS SATISFIED ON THE ASSESSEE RECORDED BY THE AO THAT IT IS FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, SANCTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 FOR A.Y.2003-04 MAY BE ACCORDED IF DEEMED FIT. 7. AT THE TIME OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT OF THE AS SESSEE, AO WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH ASSESSEE IN H IS CHARGE WHICH MEANS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY CONSIDERING THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AS NO RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHER EAS THE ASSESSEES RETURN WAS ALREADY ACCEPTED U/S.143(1). THUS THE REASON RE CORDED BY THE AO AND OPINION FORMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON WRONG ASSUMPTIONS OF FACTS. IN THE CASE OF RAJA BAHADUR MOTILAL P. LTD. V. K.R. VISHWANATHAN, ITO, AND ANOTHER, HONBLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSU E OF VALIDITY OF RE-OPENING U/S.147 ON THE GROUND THAT THE PARTY FROM WHOM PURC HASES WERE MADE AND ALSO THE PARTY TO WHOM SALES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE W ERE FOUND TO BE NON- GENUINE PARTIES AND ARE KNOWN TO HAVE INDULGED IN B OGUS HAVALA TRANSACTIONS. WHILE CONSIDERING THE BASIS OF REOPENING THE HONBL E HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER; UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMIN E, ASSUMING FOR THE PRESENT THAT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAD IN HIS POSSESSION SOME I NFORMATION, WHETHER THAT INFORMATION HAD A DIRECT NEXUS OR LIVE LINK WITH TH E FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT. FOR THIS PURPOSE, REFERENCE MAY ONCE AGAIN BE MADE TO THE REASONS GIV EN BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IN HIS LETTER DATED JANUARY 11, 1985, TO THE ASSESSEE, NAMELY, 'BOTH THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES ARE MADE AND ALSO THE PARTY TO WHOM SALES ARE MADE ARE FOUND TO BE NON-GENUNINE PARTIES AND ARE KNOWN TO HAVE INDUL GED IN BOGUS HAVALA TRANSACTIONS'. THERE IS NO INDICATION AS TO WHETHER AND IN WHAT CONTEXT THESE PARTIES WERE FOUND TO BE NON-GENUINE PARTIES AND HOW THEY W ERE KNOWN TO HAVE INDULGED IN BOGUS HAVALA TRANSACTIONS. THERE IS ALSO NO INDICAT ION AVAILABLE FOR THE INFORMATION ITA NO .1356/ MUM/2012 . 6 THAT THOSE PARTIES HAD STATED THAT THEIR TRANSACTIO NS WITH THE ASSESSEE WERE BOGUS. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION, THUS, IS SQUARELY APPLI CABLE. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT HAD ANY SOUND BASIS. ACCORDINGLY, IT WILL HAVE TO BE HELD THAT THE NOTIC E WAS ISSUED WITHOUT SATISFYING THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ITS ISSUE. THE NOTICE IS, A CCORDINGLY, QUASHED. 8. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDICATION FROM AVAILABLE INFORMATION, THAT SO- CALLED PARTIES INDULGED IN THE HAVALA TRANSACTIONS AS STATED THAT THEIR TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO BOGUS, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED WITHOUT SATISFYING THE CONDITION PRECEDENT F OR ITS ISSUE. IN THE CASE IN HAND, REOPENING IS BASED ON THE REPORT OF DIT(INVES TIGATION) WITHOUT SPECIFYING ANY PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH SE ARCH PARTY WAS FOUND TO BE BOGUS. THE REPORT OF THE DIT IS GENERAL IN NATURE; ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT INDICATED HOW TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH M/S. GOLDSTAR FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED ARE BOGUS TRANSACTIONS. IN CASE OF CIT V. SFIL STOCK BROKING LTD.(SUPRA) THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WHILE CON SIDERING THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION R ECEIVED FROM DDIT(INFORMATION) HAS HELD IN PARA 9 &10 AS UNDER; IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT FIRST SENTENCE O F THE SO-CALLED REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS MERE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION). THE SECOND SENTENCE IS A DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE VERY SAME DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(INVESTIGATION) TO ISS UE A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND THE THIRD SENTENCE AGAIN COMPRISES OF A DIRECTION G IVEN BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 IN REPECT OF CASES PERTAINING TO THE RELEVANT WARD. THERE THREE SENTENCES ARE FOLLOWED BY THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE, WHICH IS THE CONCLUDING PORTION OF THE SO-CALLED REASONS: THUS, I HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION IN MY POSSESSI ON TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IN CASE OF M/S. SFIL STOCK BROKING LTD. ON THE BASIS OF REASONS RECORDED AS ABOVE. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER REFERRED TO THE INFORMATION AND THE TWO DIRECTIONS AS REASONS ON THE BASIS OF WHI CH HE WAS PROCEEDING TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. WE ARE AFRAID THAT THESE CANNOT BE THE REASONS FOR PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE SAID ACT. T HE FIRST PART IS ONLY AN INFORMATION AND THE SECOND AND THE THIRD PARTS OF T HE BEGINNING PARAGRAPH OF THE CO- CALLED REASONS ARE MERE DIRECTIONS. FROM THE SO-CAL LED REASONS, IT IS NOT AT ALL DISCERNIBLE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE INFORMATION AND INDEPENDENTLY ARRIVED AT A BELIEF T HAT, ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL WHICH HE HAD BEFORE HIM, INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT. CONSEQUENTLY, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ARRIVED AT THE CORRECT CONCLUSION ON THE FACTS. THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED. THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WH ICH ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. ITA NO .1356/ MUM/2012 . 7 9. AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT REASONS RECORDED B Y THE AO DO NOT INDICATE ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF TRANSACTIONS WHIC H WERE FOUND TO BE BOGUS AND FURTHER THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED ITS MIND BUT SIMPLY REFERRED INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DIT THAT TOO UNDER WRONG ASSUMPTION O F FACT THAT NO ASSESSMENT OR RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, REOPENING IS NOT BASED ON ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL OR SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON TH E BASIS OF WHICH THE AO COULD HAVE FORMED THE OPINION THAT INCOME ASSESSABL E TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMEN T IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSMENT ORDER IS QUASHED. SINCE THE REOPENING ITSELF IS HELD BAD IN LAW AND REASSESSMENT IS QUASHED, THEREF ORE, WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE OTHER ISSUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014. '1 * ./0 2!3 12.12.2014 / * 9 SD/- SD/- ( B.R. BASKARAN ) ( VIJAY PAL RAO , ) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 2! DATED : 12 TH DECEMBER, 2014. AK PATEL* '1 * (, :'0, '1 * (, :'0, '1 * (, :'0, '1 * (, :'0,/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &' / THE APPELLANT 2. ()&' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ; ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ; / CIT(A)-9 , MUMBAI 5. 9 (,! , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9> ? / GUARD FILE. '1! '1! '1! '1! / BY ORDER, ), (, //TRUE COPY// @ @@ @/ // /A A A A ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI