Shri Deepak Budharmal Vaswani, Ahmedabad V. DCIT, Central Circle -1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 161/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1811 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AMAN SHAH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained investment; Tangible material; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO.: 161 AND 667/AHD/18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND MADHUMITA ROY (JUDICIAL MEMBER)] ITA NO.: 161/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DEEPAK B VASWANI .APPELLANT C/O KETAN H SHAH, ADVOCATE, 903, SAPPHIRE COMPLEX, C G ROAD, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD 380 009 [PAN: AAPP V8625F] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (1), AHMEDABAD ..........RESPOND ENT ITA NO.: 667/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (1), AHMEDABAD .APPELLANT VS DEEPAK B VASWANI ..........RESPONDENT C/O KETAN H SHAH, ADVOCATE 903, SAPPHIRE COMPLEX, C G ROAD, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD 380 009 [PAN: AAPP V8625F] APPEARANCES BY KETAN SHAH AND AMAN SHAH FOR THE ASSESSEE MUDIT NAGPAL FOR THE REVENUE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JUNE 14, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : JUNE 17, 2019 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, VP: 1. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 5 TH JANUARY 2018 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. WHEN THESE APPEALS WERE CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT ONE OF THE GRIEVANCES THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS RAISED, IN HIS APPEAL, IS AGAINST LEARNED CIT(A)S UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT IN THE EVENT OF THIS GRIEVANCE BEING UPHELD, ALL OTHER ISSUES RAISE D IN THE CROSS APPEALS WILL BE RENDERED ITA NO.: 161 AND 667/AHD/18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAGE 2 OF 6 ACADEMIC. HE PRAYS THAT THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER, THEREFORE, BE TAKEN UP FIRST. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT OPPOSE THE PRA YER. HE, HOWEVER, SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE CASE ON THE REOPENING ASPECT, EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER FIRST. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL TO FIRST TAKE UP THE I SSUE REGARDING CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. AS WE HAVE NOTED EARLIER, THIS IS A CASE OF REOP ENED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, AS RECORDED B Y THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER ON 30.1.2014, ARE AS FOLLOWS: IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE FIELD RETURN OF INCOME ON 2 2.01.2008 DECLARING TOTAL RS.19,12,110/- THE SAME WAS PRESSED U/S.143(1) ACCE PTING THE INCOME RS. 19,12,110/-. ON 28.06.2013 INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE DCI T, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD THAT SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI ROHIT CHANDUJT THAKOR AT 'CHANDANMAM NIWAS', NANO THAKORVAS, AMBALI - BOP A! ROAD, AMBALIGAM, AHMEDABAD ON 21.09.2010. THE SEARCH ASSESSMENT IN T HE CASE OF SHRI ROHIT CHNDUJI THAKOR WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 153A OF THE ACT ON 30.03.2013. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI ROH IT C THAKORE, SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI ROHIT C. THAKORE, SOME PAPERS/DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED, WHICH CONTAINS DETAIL S OF RECEIPT OF RS.3.11 CRORE BY YOU BETWEEN 08.08.2006 TO 22.01.2007 (IN AY 2007-08 ) FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION TOWARD THE SALE OF LAND 39A AT BOPAL AS UNDER : RS.11,00.000/- 17.06.2006 RS.50,00,000/- CASH 08.08.2006 RS.25,00,000/- 26.08.2006 BS.25,00,000/- CASH 28.08.2006 RS.50,00,000/- 18.09.2006 RS.50,00,000/- CASH 10.10.2006 RS.50,00,000/- 12.10.2006 RS.50,00,000/- 22.01.2007 ------------------- RS.3.11 CRORE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED PAPERS AND MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD THE AMOUNT OF RS.3.11 CRORE PAID TO SHRI DEEPAK VASVANI AS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAG E NO.23 WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF SHRI ROHIT THAKORE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE DCIT, CC-2(1), AHMED ABAD. ON PERUSAL OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OF SHRI DEEPAKKU MAR BUDHARMAL VASWANI, HE HAS SHOWN TOTAL INCOME OF RS.19,12,110/- ONLY FOR THE A Y 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE RECEIPT OF RS.3.11 CRORE IN RETURN OF INC OME FOR AY 2007-08. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE THEREFORE, REASON TO B ELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTIO N 147 OF THE IT ACT 1961. THEREFORE, THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR RE-OPENING OF ASS ESSMENT. [THE HIGHLIGHTING, BY USING BOLD LETTERS AND BY UNDERLINING, SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER] ITA NO.: 161 AND 667/AHD/18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAGE 3 OF 6 4. THE ASSESSEE DID OBJECT TO THESE REASONS OF REOP ENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE VERY FACTUAL FOUNDATION ON WHICH THE R EASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WERE SET OUT. HE REQUESTED FOR A COPY OF THE LETTER DATE D 28 TH JUNE 2013, REFERRED TO IN THE REASONS SO RECORDED, BASED ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED. HE SUBMITTED THAT, TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE, THERE WAS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL BA SED ON WHICH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT H E HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PLOT NO. 33A REFERRED TO IN THE REASONS AND THE SAME BELONGS TO PARTH BOPAL COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD AND NOT HIM. REFERRING TO HONBLE SUPREME COURT S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS (103 ITR 437) , THE ASSESSEE HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED FOR LIVE LINK BETWEEN MATERIAL AND BELIEF SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE RE OPENING AND THE FACT THAT AN APPLICATION WAS ALSO FILED SEEKING RELEVANT INFORMATION UNDER THE R IGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. THE ASSESSEE THUS VEHEMENTLY OBJECTED TO THE REASONS RE CORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. VIDE ORDER DATED 10 TH JUNE 2014, THESE OBJECTIONS WERE DISPOSED OF. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE INQUIRIES HAVE REVEALED THAT ROHIT THAKORE HAD ACTU ALLY PAID RS 3.11 CRORE TO THE ASSESSEE BETWEEN 8.8.16 TO 22.1.2007, AND THIS AMOUNT WAS NO T SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS THUS A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF RS 3.11 CROR ES HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. THE OBJECTIONS WERE THUS OVERRULED, AND THE ASSESSING O FFICER PROCEEDED WITH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE ONCE AGAIN RAI SED OBJECTIONS TO THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. WHILE UPHOLDI NG THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 4.2 SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF AS MENTIONED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE DATE D 7.8.2013 U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT. IN RES PONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 29.8.2013 STATED THAT T HE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 22.01.2008 SHOWING INCOME OF RS.19,12,110/- MAY BE CONSIDERED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 20.9.2013 WAS ISSUED AND DULY SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT. HOWE VER, THE APPELLANT FILED WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON TW O COUNTS I.E. I) APPROVAL ACCORDED U/S. 151(2) OF THE ACT AND II) INITIATION OF PROCEE DINGS AND REASONS RECORDED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT VIDE ORD ER DATED 27.1.2014 HELD THAT DEPARTMENT WOULD WITHDRAW THE IMPUGNED NOTICES U/S. 148, HOWEVER, WITH A LIBERTY TO TAKE FRESH ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. THERE FORE, THE NOTICE DATED 7.8.2013 ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS WITHDRAWN VIDE LETTER DATED 5.2,2014 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND A FRESH NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 5. 2.2014 AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE. APPROVAL U/S 151 WAS ALSO O BTAINED FROM THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE. THE APPELLANT AGAIN STATED VIDE LETTER DATED 10.3.2014 THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 22.1.20 08 MAY BE CONSIDERED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. THE APPELLANT FILED LETTER DATED 3.4.2014 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVIDE COPY OF THE ORIGIN AL REASONS RECORDED AND ALSO RAISED OBJECTIONS FOR REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 30.5.2014. THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE REASONS RECORDED WERE PROVIDED TO THE APPELL ANT ALONGWITH LETTER DATED 5.5.2014 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE OBJECTIONS R AISED BY THE APPELLANT WERE ALSO DISPOSED OFF BY PASSING SPEAKING ORDER DATED 10.6.2 014. THEREFORE, THE AO ASKED THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT S EIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI ITA NO.: 161 AND 667/AHD/18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAGE 4 OF 6 ROHIT C. THAKORE AT CHANDANMANI NIWAS, NANO THAKORE VAS, AMBALI, BOPAL ROAD, AHMEDABAD. ON 21.9.2014 WITH REGARD TO CONSIDERATIO N RECEIVED IN .CASH OF. RS.3.11 CRORE BETWEEN 17.06.2006. TO 20.1.2007 RELEVANT TO AY 2007-08 FOR TRANSACTION OF LAND AT BOPAL 39-A, AS RECORDED IN THE PAPERS SEIZE D, AS PER ANNEXURE BS-24. THE APPELLANT WAS PROVIDED FINAL OPPORTUNITY VIDE LETTE R DATED 19.1.2015 IN WHICH DETAILS OF PROPOSED ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED PAPERS AND STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAS BEEN MENTIONED. THE APPELLANT FILED REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 23.2.2015, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO BUT NOT F OUND SATISFACTORY, HENCE, ADDITIONS OF RS.3,11,00,000/- WERE MADE TO THE RETU RNED INCOME. THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ADDITIONS. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 7. AS A PLAIN READING OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR R EOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WOULD SHOW, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS 3.11 CRORE PAID TO SHRI DEEPAK VAS AVNI, AS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAGE NO. 23, WAS ADDED TO T HE TOTAL INCOME OF SHRI ROHIT THAKORE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT (EMPHASIS, BY UNDERLINING, PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER RECORDING THE REASONS OF REOPENING THE ASSE SSMENT) IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE DCIT, CC-2(1), AHMEDABAD AND, AS STATED IN THE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING SENTE NCE, ON PERUSAL OF THE INCOME OF SHRI DEEPAKKUMAR BUDDHA RMAL VASWANI, HE HAS NOW TOTAL INCOME OF RS 19,22,110 ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 . ON THESE FACTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE RECEIPT OF RS 3.11 CRORE IN RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2007-08 , AND OPINED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE, THEREFORE, REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESS EES INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANINGS OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE, THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT . ALL THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE MADE IN THE SAME ORDER , ONE AFTER THE OTHER WITHOUT ANYTHING ELSE, AND CLEA RLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT BECAUSE RS 3.11 CRORES PAID TO SHRI DEEPAL VASWANI, WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN THE H ANDS OF ROHIT THAKORE, HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN AS RECEIPTS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ROHIT THAKORE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, AND TAXABILITY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE AS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS ARE, AS SET OUT IN THESE REASONS, CLEARLY IN THE NATURE OF CAUSE AN D EFFECT RELATIONSHIP. 8. LEARNED COUNSEL, HOWEVER, POINTS OUT THAT THE OB SERVATIONS MADE IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT INASMUCH AS NO ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF ROHIT THAKORE AS UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS 3.11 CRORE, OR OF ANY AMOUNT FOR THAT PURPOSES, AND THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE REASONS RECORDED DOES NOT HOLD GOOD IN LAW. OUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO A COPY OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH DOES NOT SHOW ANY ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND, THEREFORE, UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. LEARNED COUNSEL THEN INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD VS R B WADKAR [(2004) 268 ITR 332 (BOM)] IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT NOTHING CAN BE READ INTO THE REASO NS AND THAT REASONS MUST BE READ AS THE REASONS ARE RECORDED. NOTHING CAN BE ADDED TO, OR D ELETED FROM, THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING TH E ASSESSMENT IS TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON IN ITA NO.: 161 AND 667/AHD/18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAGE 5 OF 6 THE LIGHT OF WHAT HAS BEEN ACTUALLY RECORDED. ONCE WHAT IS RECORDED IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT, THE REOPENING CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED FOR ANY OTHER REA SONS WHICH DOES NOT FIND MENTION IN THE REASONS ACTUALLY RECORDED. WE ARE THUS, URGED TO QU ASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS SHORT REASON ALONE. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, URGES US NOT TO BE PEDANTIC IN APPROACH AND TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE A CTUAL FACTS IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. HE DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT NO ADDITION WAS EVENTUALLY MADE, A S UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, IN THE HANDS OF ROHIT THAKORE, AND SUBMITS THAT IT WAS FOR THIS REA SON THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS JUST A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR INASMUCH AS WORD NOT HAS BEEN INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUT BEFORE THE WORDS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF SHRI ROHIT THAKORE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT (EMPHASIS, BY UNDERLINING, AS WAS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER) AND IT IS OF THIS ADDITION NOT HAVING BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF ROHIT THAKORE THAT THE ADDITION WAS REQUIR ED TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER RELIES UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B IN SUPPORT OF THE STAND THAT MERE INADVERTENT OMISSION OF NOT WILL NOT VITIATE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN SHORT REJOINDER ON THIS ISSUE, LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS TH AT SECTION 292B HAS NO APPLICATION IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT NOT MAKING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE PERSON ALLEGED MAKING UNACCOUNTED PAYMENTS CANNOT, BY ANY STRETCH OF LOGIC, BE REASON ENOUGH TO MAKE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ALLEGED RECIPIEN T. HE SUBMITS THAT THIS ARGUMENT REFLECTS THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION AND, IN ANY EVENT, IT DE FIES COMMON SENSE AS WELL. WE ARE THUS URGED TO QUASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 9. IT IS WELL SETTLED IN LAW THAT REASONS, AS RECOR DED FOR REOPENING THE REASSESSMENT, ARE TO BE EXAMINED ON A STANDALONE BASIS. NOTHING CAN BE A DDED TO THE REASONS SO RECORDED, NOR ANYTHING CAN BE DELETED FROM THE REASONS SO RECORDE D. HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD (SUPRA) , HAS, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED THAT '.IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE REASONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE READ AS THEY WERE RECORDED BY THE AO. NO SUBSTITUTION OR DELETION IS PERMISSIBLE. NO ADDITIO NS CAN BE MADE TO THOSE REASONS. NO INFERENCE CAN BE ALLOWED TO BE DRAWN ON THE BASIS O F REASONS NOT RECORDED. IT IS FOR THE AO TO DISCLOSE AND OPEN HIS MIND THROUGH THE REASON S RECORDED BY HIM. HE HAS TO SPEAK THROUGH THE REASONS.' THEIR LORDSHIPS ADDED THAT 'THE REASONS RECORDED SHOULD BE SELF- EXPLANATORY AND SHOULD NOT KEEP THE ASSESSEE GUESSI NG FOR REASONS. REASONS PROVIDE LINK BETWEEN CONCLUSION AND THE EVIDENCE.'. THEREFORE, THE REASONS ARE TO BE EXAMINED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS AS RECORDED. AS FOR THE IMPACT OF SECTION 292B ON THE DEFECTS IN THE REASONS RECORDED, IF WE ARE TO PROCEED ON THE B ASIS THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHALL NOT BE INVALID OR BY REASON OF ANY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IF SUCH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE AND E FFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT, THE REASONS REC ORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE REDUCED TO A MEANINGLESS RITUAL. THAT WILL MAKE THE THINGS UNWORKABLE AND IT IS ONLY ELEMENTARY THAT THE LAW IS TO BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO MAKE IT WORKABLE RATHER THAN MAKE IT REDUNDANT, AS IS REFLECTED IN THE LATIN MAXIM, WELL APPROVED BY THE HONBLE COURTS ABOVE TIME AND AGAIN, UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT I.E., IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO MAKE IT WORKABLE RATHER THAN REDUNDANT. WHILE ON THIS ISSUE, IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B HAVE BEEN ON THE STATUTE RIGHT SINCE 1 ST OCTOBER 1975, WHICH WERE INTRODUCED AS PART OF FIRST AMENDMENTS IN TAX LAWS AFTER INTERNAL EMERGEN CY CAME INTO FORCE IN 1975, AND YET MANY DECADES LATER IN 2004, WHILE DELIVERING THE LANDMAR K JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN LEVER (SUPRA) , HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE NO ADDIT IONS CAN BE MADE TO THOSE ITA NO.: 161 AND 667/AHD/18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAGE 6 OF 6 REASONS WHICH DO NOT FIND PLACE IN THE REASONS SP ECIFICALLY RECORDED AND THAT NO INFERENCES CAN BE ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF REASONS NOT RECORDED . THE LAW SO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE BOMBAY COURT BINDS US- PARTICULARLY AS THERE IS NO CONTRARY DECISION BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. OBVIOUSLY, THEREFORE, SECTION 292 B CAN NOT COME TO RESCUE WHEN THERE ARE FOUNDATIONAL DEFECTS IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR RE OPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THIS ANALYSIS OF LEGAL POSITION APART, EVEN IF IT IS TO BE ASSUMED THAT THERE WAS AN INADVERTENT OMISSION OF WORD NOT IN THE REASONS RECORDED, IT DOES NOT EVE N MAKE SENSE THAT THE REASON FOR HOLDING THE UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT BY ROHIT THAKORE WILL BE TA XABLE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD BE THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION HAS NO T BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF ROHIT THAKORE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. AN ADDITION BEING MADE I N THE HANDS OF PERSON MAKING UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IS INDEPENDENT OF THE ADDITI ON BEING MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PERSON AT THE OTHER END OF SUCH AN INVESTMENT TRANSACTION. IF X PAYS RS 50 LAKHS AS UNACCOUNTED CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF A HOUSE FROM Y, T HIS AMOUNT WILL BE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF X AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND IT WILL ALSO RESULT IN ADDITIONAL INCOME, ON ACCOUNT OF SALE TRANSACTION, IN THE HANDS OF Y AS WELL. THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS INCORRECT FOR THIS REASON AS WELL. THE REASONS RECO RDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOW THE CORRECT APPROACH BUT ARE VITIATED BY INCORRECT FACT S. WHEN THE FOUNDATIONAL FACTS ARE ADMITTEDLY INCORRECT, SUCH REASONS FOR REOPENING TH E ASSESSMENT CANNOT MEET JUDICIAL APPROVAL. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEA RING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ARE UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WE VAC ATE THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT FOR THIS SHORT REASON. 10. AS WE HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SHORT REASON SET OUT ABOVE, ALL OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE, AS ALSO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ARE ACADEMIC AT THIS STAGE. NO ADJUDICATIO N IS, THUS, NEEDED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE, AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 17 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019 SD/- SD/- MADHUMITA ROY PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (VICE-P RESIDENT) AHMEDABAD, DATED THE 17 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT/DEPUTY REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD