Dineshkumar Munilal Gautam, Jalgaon V. Income -tax Officer, Jalgaon

ITA 1430/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8576 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI KRISHAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Salary income; Cost of acquisition; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 2(14); 147; 131; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE . , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.1430/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 DINESHKUMAR MUNILAL GAUTAM, 98/2B, RAMDWAR PARK, NEAR DADAWADI, JALGAON. PAN : ABGPG9728A ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. ITO, WARD- 2(4), JALGAON. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARI KRISHAN REVENUE BY : SHRI YOGESH KAMAT, ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 19.12.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.12.2018 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-2, NASHIK DATED 10.04.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PROFESSOR IN THE NORTH MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY, JALGAON AND EARNED INCOME FROM SALARY. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,07,480/-. IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE TRANSACTION RELATING TO SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT GUT NO.374/2/A ON 11.12.2007 WAS SCRUTINIZED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO ADDITION WAS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE TRANSACTION INVOLVED 2 ITA NO.1430/PUN/2017 THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.32,42,500/-. THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND TO M/S INDIYANA EDUCATION AND WELFARE TRUST. SMT. RAJKUMARI DINESHKUMAR GAUTAM, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE, IS CHAIRPERSON OF THE TRUST. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPY OF SALE DEED AND OTHER DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE WAS AN ENQUIRY INTO THE DISTANCE OF THE LAND FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS. ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE SAME IS LOCATED BEYOND 8 KILOMETRES FROM THE LIMITS OF JALGAON MUNICIAL CORPORATION. THIS WAS THE SUBJECT-MATTER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. A CERTIFICATE DATED 12.02.2009 ISSUED BY THE DY. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, PWD ERANDOL, CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, DHARANGAON, DIST. JALGOAN AND CERTIFICATE DATED 22.01.2009 ISSUED BY MR. N.H. PATIL, TALATHI, PALDHI (BK.). THE SAID DISTANCE VARIES FROM ONE CERTIFICATE TO THE OTHER. THEREFORE, ALL THE THREE AUTHORITIES WERE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 131 OF THE ACT. EVENTUALLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BEYOND 8 KILOMETRES FROM THE LIMITS OF JALGAON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID PROPERTY WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 15.12.2010 ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT WERE TRIGGERED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 23.04.2014 AFTER THE REASONS WERE DULY RECORDED AND ALSO AFTER OBTAINING THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE CIT-II, NASHIK. THE CORE REASON FOR THE SAID REOPENING IS TO SCRUTINIZE THE SAID SALE TRANSACTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND LOCATED AT GUT NO.374/2/A ON 11.12.2007 ITSELF. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED AFTER MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AROSE ON SALE OF THE SAID AGRICULTURAL 3 ITA NO.1430/PUN/2017 LAND. IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF PURCHASE DEED, 7/12 EXTRACTS, LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, AURANGABAD, WHICH PROVIDES FOR CONFIRMED THE DISTANCE OF 2.6 KILOMETRES START FROM THE VILLAGE TO THE END OF THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS ETC. ON THE ISSUE OF DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND MUNICIPAL LIMITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED HEAVILY ON THE LETTER OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, AURANGABAD. IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.98,58,718/- AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,01,66,198/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.3,07,480/-. THE RELEVANT COMPUTATION OF THE ADDITION IS GIVEN IN PARA 4 AND 5 OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAME IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER :- THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS, WHICH IS HEREBY TAXED ACCORDINGLY. THE WORKING OF CAPITAL GAIN ARE AS UNDER :- SALE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT GUT NO.374/2 RS.1,00,00,000/- DATE OF SALE. 27/12/2007. COST OF ACQUISITION (25/11/1998) RS.90,000/- 90,000 X 551 INDEXED COST = --------------------- = RS.1,41,282/- 351 LESS : INDEXED COST. RS.1,41,282/- ------------------------ LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. RS.98,58,718/- ------------------------- THUS, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS WORKED OUT ABOVE AT RS.98,58,718/- IS HEREBY CONSIDERED FOR TAXATION AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 274 RWS 271(1)(C) ARE SEPARATELY INITIATED. 5. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE REMARKS, TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER :- TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETURN OF INCOME : RS.3,07,480/- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, DISCUSSED ABOVE. : RS.98,58,718/- --------------------------- TOTAL INCOME. RS.1,01,66,198/- 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE RAISED VARIOUS 4 ITA NO.1430/PUN/2017 GROUNDS AND PRAYED FOR QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THE SAME CONSTITUTES THE PRODUCT OF THE CHANGE OF OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO ON THE GROUND OF THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED THE VARIOUS GROUNDS ON MERITS TOO. LEGAL ISSUE INVALID REOPENING U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 5. ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE DISCUSSION IN PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER UPHELD THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HELD THAT THE STATEMENTS OF MR. N.H. PATIL, TALATHI WAS NOT CORRECT. HE ALSO HELD THAT THIS IS NOT THE CHANGE OF OPINION INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AND THE ARGUMENT RELATING TO THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, THE CIT(A) VIDE CONTENTS IN PARA 10 OF HIS ORDER HELD THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT APPLIED TO THE PRESENT CASE. THE CONTENTS OF PARA 10 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS EXTRACTED AS FOLLOWS :- 10. GROUND NO.4 IS THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 AS A FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT HAVE NOT BEEN MENTIONED IN THE REASON RECORDED FOR THE REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. IN THIS REGARD IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT AS PER REASON RECORDED BY THE A.O. THE APPELLANT HAD INCORRECTLY CLAIMED THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND SOLD IS SITUATED WITHIN 8 KM FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF JALGAON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND THE SAID CLAIM WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT IN VIEW OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY DY. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, PW, ERANDOL AND NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI), AURANGABAD. THEREFORE, IMPLIEDLY THE A.O. HAD STATED IN THE REASON RECORDED THAT THE APPELLANT AHS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. GROUND NO.4 IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 6. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE 5 ITA NO.1430/PUN/2017 DISTANCE OF 8 KILOMETRES AND, THEREFORE, THE PROPERTY CONSTITUTES A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. 7. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID FINDING BOTH ON LEGAL AS WELL AS ON MERITS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. IN THE ABSENCE OF CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITO AND HENCE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY PLEASE BE ANNULLED. 2. THE VARIOUS REASONS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) FOR UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY, LEGALITY AND PROPERTY OF THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER BEING BAD IN LAW, ARBITRARY, PERVERSE AND DEVOID OF MERITS THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE VACATED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER MAY PLEASE BE ANNULLED. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AGRICULTURE LANDS SOLD BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR WERE NOT CAPITAL ASSETS WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD THAT THE SAID LANDS ARE NOT CAPITAL ASSETS AND THEREFORE NO CAPITAL GAINS WOULD ARISE ON TRANSFER OF THE SAID LANDS. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE IMPUGNED AGRICULTURE LANDS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR BY THE APPELLANT HAVE RESULTED IN TO TAXABLE CAPITAL GAINS. THE SAID FINDING OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) BEING BAD IN LAW, ARBITRARY, PERVERSE AND DEVOID OF MERITS THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE VACATED AND THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS BE DELETED. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT WAS AN OWNER TO THE EXTENT OF UNDIVIDED 50% SHARE OF THE IMPUGNED LANDS TRANSFERRED DURING THE YEAR AND THEREFORE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING IF ANY ON THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE IN THE IMPUGNED LANDS COULD NOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT PARTICULARLY WHEN THE APPELLANTS WIFE PURCHASED THE IMPUGNED LANDS OUT OF HER SEPARATE FUNDS AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AFTER DUE VERIFICATION ACCEPTED HER 50% OWNERSHIP IN THE IMPUGNED LANDS. 6. THE APPELLANT MAY PLEASE BE AWARDED COST U/S 254(2B) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 FOR CAUSING HARASSMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT BY PASSING EX-FACIE ILLEGAL ORDERS IN THE MATTER. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE PERMISSION TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, REVISE, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IF DEEMED NECESSARY AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 6 ITA NO.1430/PUN/2017 8. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CORE ISSUE FOR WHICH NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED RELATES TO THE TAXATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE SALE TRANSACTION OF THE LAND. NARRATING THE FACTS, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY SUMMED UP IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FIRST ROUND OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS ANALYZED AT LENGTH BEFORE THE DECISION WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDING THE TRANSACTION AS THE TRANSACTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE SUPPLIED ALL INFORMATION RELATING TO THE SAID TRANSACTION FOR DECIDING THE SAME DURING THE FIRST ROUND OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AFTER SCRUTINIZING THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FORMED AN OPINION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF THE ACT ERRONEOUSLY BY APPLYING THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO HIM, IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION. REFERRING TO THE CONTENTS OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE OUT A CASE BOTH DURING THE RECORDING OF THE REASONS BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 147 OF THE ACT OR IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY THE RELEVANT FACTS NECESSARY FOR MAKING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECOMES UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN THIS REGARD, REFERRING TO THE CONTENTS OF PAGE 58 OF THE PAPER BOOK, (A SHOW CAUSE LETTER DATED 15.07.2014), THE LD. COUNSEL READ OUT THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAID SALE TRANSACTION OF GUT NO.374/2/A AND ALSO READ OUT THE DEBATE ABOUT THE DISTANCE OF PROPERTY FROM THE LIMITS OF 7 ITA NO.1430/PUN/2017 JALGAON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ALONG WITH THE DEFINITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2(14)(III)(A) OF THE ACT. FINALLY, AR READ OUT THE CONTENTS OF PARA 4.7 AT PAGE 66 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO DEMONSTRATE THE FACTS OF CONSIDERING THE ISSUE AT LENGTH. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT BOTH IN THE REASONS OR THE REASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNAWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF MENTIONING OR LISTING THE FAILURES ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS RELEVANT FOR MAKING OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON VARIOUS BINDING JUDGEMENTS/DECISIONS TO DEMONSTRATE THE UNSUSTAINABILITY OF SUCH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ON THE LEGAL ISSUE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BECOME IN VALID. 10. PER CONTRA , THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE REASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR EXPIRED ON 31.03.2013. FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 IN THIS CASE OF THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, SINCE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IS ISSUED ON 23.04.2014, THE PROVISIONS OF PROVISO BECOMES APPLICABLE. AS PER THE SAID PROVISO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNDER THE STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO RECORD THE REASONS 8 ITA NO.1430/PUN/2017 GIVING THE DETAILS OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR MAKING HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THIS REGARD, WE EXAMINED THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 147 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 15.07.2014 IS RELEVANT AND THE DETAILS MENTIONED IN THE SAID LETTER RELATES TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AT GUT NO.374/2/A. MOST OF THE PARAGRAPHS ARE READ MARK WITH REGARD TO THE CAPITAL ASSET AND DISTANCE OF 8 KILOMETRES FROM THE LIMITS OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. NOWHERE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LISTED OUT THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ANY MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR MAKING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, THE CONTENTS OF PARA 4.7 IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER :- 4.7 CONSIDERING THE FACTS VIS-A-VIS ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. HENCE NOTICE U/S 148 IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 12. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO RECORD THE FAILURES OF THE ASSESSEE IN MATTER OF DISCLOSURE OF THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR MAKING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) REQUIRES TO BE REVERSED ON THIS LEGAL ISSUE. THE CONTENTS AT PARA 10 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN PRINCIPLE, DO NOT INDICATE SUSTAINABLE LOGIC OR REASONING FOR UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS LIES ON HIM. CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FAILURE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL ON THE LEGAL ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED . 9 ITA NO.1430/PUN/2017 13. CONSIDERING OUR DECISION (SUPRA), THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADJUDICATION OF OTHER ISSUES ON MERITS BECOMES AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS ACADEMIC. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( /VIKAS AWASTHY) ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 31 ST DECEMBER, 2018. SUJEET / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)-2, NASHIK. 4. THE CCIT, NASHIK. 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.