Sri Jagmohan Sharma, Burdwan V. I.T.O Wd - 3(1),Asansol, Asansol

ITA 1384/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83110 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD GAYASUDDIN ANSARI
• Assessee Lawyers: H B BHARDWAJ
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

, SMC(B) , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC(B) BENCH : KOLKATA () BEFORE , ) [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] / I.T.A NO.1384/KOL/2013 !'/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI JAGMOHAN SHARMA VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-3 (1), ASANSOL (PAN: AJAPS8778G) ($% /APPELLANT ) (&'$%/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 20.08.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05.09.2014 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI H. B. BHARDWAJ, CA FOR THE RESPONDENT: MD. GAYASUDDIN ANSARI, JCIT, SR. DR () / ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A), ASANSOL IN APPEAL NO. 143/CIT(A)/ASL/W-3(1)/ASL/2008-09 DATED 20.03.2013. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WARD-3(1), ASANSOL U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 VIDE HIS ORDER D ATED 15.12.2008. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS AS REGARDS TO, WHETHER REASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT FOR ESCAPE MENT OF INCOME CAN BE INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT VA LID RETURN FILED BY ASSESSEE U/S. 139(4) OF THE ACT IS PENDING. PENDING MEANS, TIME IS AVAILABLE F OR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WITH THE REVENUE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2006-07 ON 21.02.2007. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE A CT DATED 01.11.2007 AND IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE REPLIED VIDE L ETTER DATED 14.05.2008 THAT THE RETURN FILED BY ASSESSEE ON 21.02.2007 BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED I N RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY ALTERATION. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 22.05.2008. THE ASSESSEE NOW CHALLENGED THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT BY REVENUE FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF THE ACT FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE REASON THAT, WHEN A VALID RETURN FILED U/S. 139(4) OF THE ACT IS PENDING ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE BEFORE CIT(A) AND ALSO RAISED THE ISSUE THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AS SAME WAS ISSUED ON 22.05.20 08. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY OBSERVING IN PARA 4, 5 AND 6 AS UNDER: 2 ITA NO.1384/K/2013 SHRI JAGMOHAN SHARMA, AY 06-07 4. THE TWO HAS TO BE COMBINED TOGETHER AND DECIDED WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS VALID. TO SUPPORT THE POINT THAT NO TICE UNDER SECTION 148 CANNOT BE ISSUED WHEN TIME IS AVAILABLE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U NDER SECTION 143(2), THE APPELLANT CITES DECISIONS OF HON ITAT IN 105/KOL/2010, 08 & 25/ASR/ 2011, (2010) 37 DTR (CHENNAI). HOWEVER IN PUNJAB TRACTORS LTD. VS. DCIT (P&H) 254 ITR 242, SRI KRISHNA MAHAL VS ACIT (MAD) 250 ITR 333 AND KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD . VS. ACIT (ITAT, LUCKNOW) 32 SOT 80 IT WAS HELD THAT ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 IS VALID EVEN WHEN TIME TO ISSUE 143(2) WAS THERE. IN VIEW OF PREVAILING DECISIONS OF HON. HIGH COURT I HOLD THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WITHIN TIME LIMIT AVAILABL E FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) HAS NOT VITIATED THE ASSESSMENT. 5. SINCE I HAVE HELD THAT ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 148 AS VALID, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS HELD TO BE ONE PURSUANT TO REASSE SSMENT NOTICE. THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) ISSUED ON 22.5.08 IS VALID. 6. AS I HAD HELD THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) AND 148 TO BE VALID. I DISMISS GROUNDS 1.0 TO 3.0. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE ME. 4. I HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I FIND FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NARRATED ABOVE T HAT A VALID RETURN OF INCOME SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE U/S. 139(4) OF THE ACT WAS PENDING ASSESSM ENT. ON THIS PENDING RETURN, AO IS EMPOWERED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT AS THE TIME LIMIT HAS NOT EXPIRED. IF A VALID RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY AN ASSESSEE WITHIN THE PERIOD FIXED U/S. 139(4) OF THE ACT FOR SUBMISSION OF RETURN, THE PROVISION OF SECT ION 147 AND 148 OF THE ACT WILL NOT APPLY DURING THE PENDENCY OF A VALID RETURN ON WHICH ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT CAN VALIDLY BE INITIATED. WHERE AN ASSESSEE FILES RETURN OF INCOME, WHETHER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), (2) OR (4) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO PREVENT THE AO FROM TAKING UP THE RETURN OF INCOME SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND PROCEEDINGS TO ASSESS THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CAN ALWAYS BE INITIATED. DURING THE PENDENCY OF A VALID RETURN O F INCOME, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AS IS ENVISAGED IN THE PROVISION OF SECTI ON 147 READ WITH SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE AO CANNOT IGNORE A VALID RETURN FILED UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT AND ANY NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT READ WITH SEC TION 147 OF THE ACT, IGNORING SUCH RETURN, IS INVALID. THIS VIEW OF MINE IS SUPPORTED BY THE DEC ISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. SOVA SARKAR VS. ITO (1983) 139 ITR 386 (CAL), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT WHEN THERE IS NO QUESTI ON AS TO THE VALIDITY OF A RETURN FILED BY AN ASSESSEE, THE ITO HAS TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSM ENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH S. 143 OF THE ACT AND BEFORE SUCH COMPLETION HE WOULD NOT HAVE AN Y JURISDICTION TO IGNORE THE RETURN AND TO ISSUE A NOTICE UNDER S. 148. BUT THE QUESTIO N IS WHETHER THE ITO HAS SUCH JURISDICTION WHEN THE RETURN IS NOT STRICTLY IN ACC ORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. UNDER S. 147(A) OF THE ACT ONE OF THE GROUNDS WHICH ENABLES THE ITO TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE BY ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER S. 148 IS THAT THE ITO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT, BY REASON OF THE OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER S. 139 OF THE ACT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT Y EAR, INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS 3 ITA NO.1384/K/2013 SHRI JAGMOHAN SHARMA, AY 06-07 ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THAT YEAR. SECTION 139 PROVI DES, INTER ALIA, THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL FURNISH A RETURN OF HIS INCOME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTH ER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED SECTION 143 OF THE ACT, AS IT STOOD BEFORE ITS AMEN DMENT IN 1970, RUNS AS FOLLOWS: ' 143. (1) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SECTI ON 139 AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS SATISFIED WITHOUT REQUIRING THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE PRODUCTION BY HIM OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE RETURN I S CORRECT AND COMPLETE, HE SHALL ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE, AN D SHALL DETERMINE THE SUM PAYABLE BY HIM OR REFUNDABLE TO HIM ON THE BASIS OF SUCH RETURN. (2) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 139, BUT THE INCOMETAX OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITHOUT REQUIRING THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE THAT THE RETURN IS CORRECT AND COMPLETE, H E SHALL SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM, ON A DATE' TO BE THEREIN SPEC IFIED, EITHER TO ATTEND AT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER'S OFFICE, OR TO PRODUCE, OR TO C AUSE TO BE THERE PRODUCED, ANY EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY RELY IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN, (3) ON THE DAY SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OR AS SOON AFTERWARDS AS MAY BE, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AFTER HEARING SUCH EVIDENCE AS THE ASSESSEE MAY PRODUCE AND SUCH OTHER EVIDENCE AS THE INCOMETAX OFFICER MAY REQUIRE ON SPECIFIC POINTS, AND AFTER TAKING INTO A CCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL WHICH THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS GATHERED, SHALL, B Y AN ORDER IN WRITING, ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND DETER MINE THE SUM PAYABLE BY HIM OR REFUNDABLE TO HIM ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ASSESSMENT.' THE EXPRESSION 'THAT THE RETURN IS CORRECT AND COM PLETE' IS SIGNIFICANT. IT OBVIOUSLY REFERS TO S. 139 OF THE ACT, FOR, A RETUR N IS NOT CORRECT AND COMPLETE IF IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION. IN OTHER WORDS, IF A RETURN IS NOT VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND DOES NOT CONTAIN THE PRESCRIB ED PARTICULARS, IT IS NOT CORRECT AND COMPLETE. SECTION 143 LAYS DOWN THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE ITO WHEN A RETURN FILED BY AN ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT AND COMPLETE OR WHEN IT IS SO, AS THE CASE MAY BE. THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CASE OF A NON-FILING O F A RETURN AND THE CASE OF FILING AN INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE RETURN. THE FORMER CONTEMP LATES WHEN NO RETURN HAS BEEN ACTUALLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHILE THE LATTER CO NTEMPLATES THE PRESENCE OF A RETURN WHICH IS NOT CORRECT AND COMPLETE. AN INCOMPLETE RETURN, THAT IS, A RETURN WHICH DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S. 139 MAY BE SAID TO BE AN INVALID RETURN. BUT THE ACT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PROVISION FOR THE REJECTION OF AN INVAL ID RETURN; ON THE CONTRARY, UNDER S. 143(3), A DUTY IS CAST ON THE ITO TO ASSESS THE TOT AL INCOME OR LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER SERVING ON HIM A NOTICE UNDER S. 143(3) AND AFTER H EARING SUCH EVIDENCE AS THE ASSESSEE MAY PRODUCE OR THE ITO MAY GATHER. WE SHOULD NOT, H OWEVER, BE UNDERSTOOD TO LAY DOWN THIS PROPOSITION THAT WHENEVER A RETURN IS FILED, T HE ITO MUST PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH S. 143, NO MATTER WHETHER OR NOT THE RETURN CONFORM S TO THE PROVISIONS OF S. 139. FOR INSTANCE, THERE MAY BE CASES WHERE THE RETURNS ARE INCOMPLETE TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THEY I CANNOT BE REGARDED AS RETURNS IN THE EYE OF LAW, NA MELY, WHERE THE RETURN IS NOT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHERE A BLANK RETURN SIGNED BY HIM IS FILED. IN EITHER CASE, THOUGH THE RETURN IS FILED, IT WILL NOT BE TREATED AS A RETURN UNDER THE LAW, AND THE ITO MAY PROCEED TO ISSUE A NOTICE UNDER S. 148 ON THE FOOTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN. IN THE INSTANT CASE, HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT FILED RETURNS, BUT THEY DID NOT INCLUDE CERTAIN PARTICULARS REGARDING THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF HIS BUSINESS. AFTER HAVING LOOKED INTO THE RETURNS, WE FIND THAT THE SAME WERE SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW OF THE LEARNED JUDG E THAT BECAUSE THE RETURNS DID NOT STATE THE PARTICULARS OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUS INESS OF THE ASSESSEE THEY WERE INVALID AND SHOULD BE REGARDED AS NON-EXISTENT. IF IT IS LA ID DOWN THAT AN INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE RETURN IS NOT A RETURN IN THE EYE OF LAW AND SHOULD BE IGNORED OR DISREGARDED, THEN S. 143 WOULD BECOME NUGATORY. IF THAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE 4 ITA NO.1384/K/2013 SHRI JAGMOHAN SHARMA, AY 06-07 BEEN ANY NECESSITY FOR IT TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROCED URE WHICH THE ITO IS TO FOLLOW WHEN A RETURN IS NOT CORRECT AND COMPLETE. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. S. RAMAN CHETTIAR [1965] 55 ITR 630 (SC), A RETURN WAS FILED PURSUANT TO A NOTICE UNDER S. 34 OF THE INDIA N I.T. ACT, 1922. THE SAID NOTICE WAS INVALID AS THE SANCTION OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS NOT OBTAINED. THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN WAS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS DROPPED AS INFRUCTUOUS. SUBSEQUENTLY , ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER S. 34 OF THE SAID ACT AND THE ITO MADE THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSING THE ASSESSEE TO TAX. IT WAS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT ALTHOUGH THE FIRST N OTICE UNDER S. 34 WAS INVALID, THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO THAT NOTICE W AS A RETURN WITHIN THE MEANING OF S. 22(3) OF THE SAID ACT, AND THE ITO COULD NOT IGNORE OR DISREGARD THAT RETURN AND ISSUE ANOTHER NOTICE UNDER S. 34 ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT T HERE HAD BEEN AN OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN OF HIS INCOME UNDER S. 22 OF THE SAID ACT. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, THE NOTICE UNDER S. 34 WAS AN INVALID NOTICE PURSUANT TO WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED BY THE A . EVEN THEN, IT WAS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE ITO COULD NOT IGNORE THE RETURN AND ISSUE A FRE SH NOTICE UNDER S. 34. IN HARGOVINDSINGH NARAINSINGH V. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 435 (BOM), THE ITO ISSUED A NOTICE, UNDER S. 22(2) OF THE INDIAN I.T. ACT, 19 22, IN THE NAME OF THE HUF, TO THE COURT RECEIVER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1956-57. IN RESPON SE TO THE NOTICE, THE COURT RECEIVER FILED RETURNS. THE ITO DID NOT PASS ANY ORDER ON TH E GROUND THAT THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE COURT RECEIVER AND THE RETURNS SUBMITTED BY HIM WER E INVALID. BUT HE PROCEEDED TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 34 OF THE SAID ACT. IT WAS HEL D BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT EVEN IF IT WERE ASSUMED THAT THE RETURNS WERE INVALID THAT WOULD NOT AUTHORISE THE ITO TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 34. FURTHER, IT WAS OBSERVED T HAT IT COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A CASE WHERE NO RETURN HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OR T HAT HIS INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. MR. PAL, HOWEVER, STRONGLY RELIED ON A DECISION OF THE LAHORE HIGH COURT IN LAL MOHAMMAD SARDAR MOHAMMAD V. CIT [1934] 2 ITR 358 (LAH). IN THAT CASE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE RETURN WAS INVALID AND THE ITO WAS JUSTIFI ED IN MAKING AN ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 23(4) OF THE SAID ACT, NAMELY, A BEST JUDGMENT ASSE SSMENT. WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE LAHORE HIGH COURT IN LAL MOHAMMAD SARDAR MOHAMMAD'S CASE. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE LAHORE HIGH COURT CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SS. (1), (2) AND (3) OF S. 23 OF THE INDIAN I.T. ACT, 1 922, WHICH WERE SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO S. 143 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. MOREOVER, THE FACTS OF THAT CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US. THE RESPONDENTS ALSO RELIED ON A DECISION OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN BEHARI LAL CHATTERJI V. CIT [1934] 2 ITR 377. (ALL). IN OUR OPINION, THE LAW THAT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DOES NOT AT ALL MILITATE AGAINST THE VIEW TAKEN BY US, BUT IT SUPPORTS THE SAME. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THAT CASE THAT, WHEN A RETURN WAS NOT SIGNED AND VERIFIED, THERE WAS NO VALID RETURN AT ALL AND THE ITO WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ASSESSMENT TO THE BEST OF JUDGMENT UNDER S. 23(4) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1922. IT THUS APPEARS TO BE WELL-SETTLED THAT WHEN A RET URN HAS BEEN FILED BY AN ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE IGNORED BY THE ITO AND HE WILL HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A NOTICE UNDER S. 148 WITHOUT COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THOUGH A RETURN IS INVALID IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS NOT CORRE CT AND COMPLETE WITHIN THE MEANING OF S. 139 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, THE ITO CANNOT IGNORE OR DISREGARD THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER S. 148 OF THE ACT, UNLESS TH E RETURN CAN BE REGARDED AS NOT A RETURN IN THE EYE OF LAW AS IN THE CASE OF THE TWO ILLUSTR ATIONS GIVEN ABOVE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ITO ACTED ON THE RETURNS FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IS SUED NOTICES UNDER S. 143(2) AND HEARD THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION UNDER S. 143(3), BUT WITHOUT COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENTS HE TOOK RECOURSE TO REOPEN THE ASSE SSMENTS UNDER S. 147 BY ISSUING THE IMPUGNED NOTICES UNDER S. 148 OF THE ACT. IN OUR VI EW, THE ITO HAS ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE IMPUGNED NOTICES. 5 ITA NO.1384/K/2013 SHRI JAGMOHAN SHARMA, AY 06-07 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND TH E CASE LAW OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND AGAINST REVENUE. THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS U/S. 147 OF THE ACT FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS BAD IN LAW AND HENCE, THE SAME IS QUASHED . THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05.09.2014. SD/- , (MAHAVIR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 *+ ,- . JD.(SR.P.S.) () / &0 1(0!2- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . $% / APPELLANT SHRI JAGMOHAN SHARMA, PROP. TIRUPATI AU TO ENGG. WORKS, P.O. SEARSOLE RAJBARI, DIST. BURDWAN (WB), P IN-713358 2 &'$% / RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-3(1), ASANSOL 3 . ) ( )/ THE CIT(A), ASANSOL 4. 5. ) / CIT ASANSOL 089 & / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA '0 &/ TRUE COPY, ():/ BY ORDER, - /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .