M/s Indo Global Techno Trade Ltd., Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 1616/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0713 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C CHANDRAKANTA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Tangible material; Assessment record; Time period of passing order; Sham transactions; Reason to believe; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 143(2); 13; 147; 131; 148; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A, CHANDIGARH . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1616/CHD/2018 ! / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LIMITED, TAJPUR RAOD, BHAMIAN KALAN, LUDHIANA '# THE ITO, WARD-1(5), LUDHIANA $ % ./PAN NO: AABCI8757Q $&/ APPELLANT ()$& /RESPONDENT *+ , - /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE , - / REVENUE BY : SMT. C. CHANDRAKANTA, CIT DR . / , +0% /DATE OF HEARING : 03.02.2020 12! , +0% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.06.2020 / ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2018 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-1, LUDHIANA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 2 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORD ER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 AND, THEREBY, THE ASSESSMENT IS ILLEGAL AND VOID. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS REASON TO BELIEVE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR IS SUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND FURTHER THERE WAS TANGIBLE MATER IAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING OF THE CASE U/S 148. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS INDEPENDENT SATISFACTION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF FORMING THE BELIEF FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 4. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,48,00,000/- IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM INVESTORS, WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE CONTRIBUTION OF SHARE CAPITAL IN THE COMPANY. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDE RATION THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AS SUBMITTED TO HIM DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL, EVEN OTHERWISE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF OPENING BALANCE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS. 25 LACS . 7. THAT THE ADDITION AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS AGA INST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DIS POSED OFF. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE INTER ALIA HAS TAKEN THE LEGAL GROUND REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 3 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AND THEREBY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 147 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE LEGAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS REG ARDING THE VALIDITY OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT AND FRAME THE ASSESSMENT IN Q UESTION, HENCE, AT THE REQUEST OF THE PARTIES, THE LEGAL GROUND IS TAK EN FIRST FOR ADJUDICATION. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED T HAT THERE WAS NO VALID REASON FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BELIEVE T HAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY TANGIBLE MATERI AL COMING TO HIS KNOWLEDGE OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE WHICH MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUSPICION WHICH COU LD NOT BE SAID TO BE THE REASON TO BELIEVE OF THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME F ROM ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS SINE QUA NON FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 O F THE ACT FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL IN THI S RESPECT HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE REASONS RECORDED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. A COPY OF THE SAME HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH WE WILL DISCUSS IN THE LATER PART OF THIS ORDER. ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 4 THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD FILED OBJECTIONS TO THE AFORESAID REASONS RECORDED / ISSU E OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, HOWEVER THE SAME WERE DISMISSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.12.2017, WHEREBY, SHE MADE THE IMPUGNED A DDITIONS. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS POINTED OUT T HAT EARLIER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT APPLY HIS MIND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS JUSTIFIED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HA VE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. SO FAR SO, THE QUESTION AS TO THE PROCESSING OF RETURN U/S. 143(1) VIZ-A-VIZ ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 1 43(3) IS CONCERNED, IT MAY BE OBSERVED THAT AFTER PROCESSING OF RETURN U/S . 143(1) THE SAME CAN BE ASSESSED U/S. 143(3) BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143 (2) SUBJECT TO ITS ISSUANCE WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH RETURN IS FURNISHED AS PER THE PROVI SO TO CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 143(2) [AS WAS EXISTING AT THE TIME OF RELE VANT ASSESSMENT YEAR]. ONCE THE LIMITATION PERIOD AS PRESCRIBED VIDE PROVI SO TO CLAUSE (II) OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 IS EXPIRED, IT IS NO T OPEN TO THE AO TO ASSESS THE INCOME U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE RE TURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 139 IS DEEMED TO BE ACCEPTED, WHICH H OWEVER, CAN BE RE- ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 5 OPENED U/S. 147 OF THE ACT SUBJECT TO THE FULFILLME NT OF INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 147 AND WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD AS PRESCRIBE D U/S. 149 OF THE ACT. SO UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IF THE RETURN IS PROCES SED U/S. 143(1) AND NOT U/S. 143(3) AND AFTER THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION, THE SAME CANNOT BE ASSESSED U/S. 143(3) THOUGH IT MAY BE INT ERPRETED AS MERE INTIMATION ASSESSMENT OR OTHERWISE, BUT THE SAME SH ALL BE DEEMED TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE AO. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE CASE IN HAND , THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT BUT THE SAME HAD A TTAINED FINALITY DUE TO THE EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED. HENCE, THE ASS ESSMENT IS DEEMED TO BE COMPLETED. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPECT CAN BE PLAC ED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER D ATED 6.2.2015 PASSED IN THE CASE OF M/S LARK CHEMICALS P. LTD, M UMBAI VS ACIT ITAT IN ITA NO. 2636/M/2013 . 7. NOW, COMING TO THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR THAT INT IMATION ISSUED U/S. 143(1) CANNOT BE EQUATED TO AN 'ASSESSMENT'. W E ARE VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE POSITION BUT MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(1), IT WILL NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 147 WITH REGARD TO 'REASONS TO BELIEVE' CAN BE DISP ENSED WITH WHEN THE FINALITY OF INTIMATION U/S.143(1) IS SOUGHT TO BE D ISTURBED AS HELD BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ORIENT CRAF T LTD. 354 ITR 536 ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 6 AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR (I) LTD., 320 ITR 561. 8. NOW COMING TO THE ISSUE OF REOPENING, AS PER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, THE AO IS AUTHORIZED TO REO PEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IF HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY I NCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE COURTS OF LAW HAVE TIME AND AGAIN HELD THAT SUCH A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE BASED ON SOME TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH COMES TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO. AN ASSESSMENT CAN NOT BE REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF MERE S USPICION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AS DISCUSSED IN EARLIER P ARAS OF THIS ORDER, HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO F OR FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT TO SUBMIT THAT THE SAME ARE NOT VALID REASONS. THE REASONS RE CORDED BY THE AO FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND READY REFERENCE ARE REP RODUCED AS UNDER:- REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LIMITED. A.Y. 2010-11. INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM DIRECTORATE OF I NCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), CHANDIGARH . THE DIRECTORATE HAS PROVIDED THE DETAIL OF COMPANIES WHICH HAVE REC EIVED SHARE PREMIUM AT VERY UNREASONABLE RATE. THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED 2900000 SHARES OF FACE VALUE OF RS. 10/-. PREMIUM @ 90/- PE R SHARE HAS BEEN RECEIVED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,61,00,000/-. ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 7 AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DIT (I& CI), C HANDIGARH, DETAILS OF AUTHORISED CAPITAL, SHARE CAPITAL & SHARE PREMIU M RECEIVED ARE AS UNDER: A.Y. AUTHORIZED CAPITAL PAID UP CAPITAL NO. O F SHARES ISSUED SHARE PREMIUM 2010-11 RS. 2,00,00,000/- RS. 19577500/- 290000 RS. 2,61,00,000/- 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRO NICALLY ON 01.04.2011 DECLARING RS. 10,55,280/- INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). 3. FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE COMPANY HAS NOTHING TO JUSTIFY TH E RECEIPT OF SHARE PREMIUM AT A A HIGHER RATE. THE COMPANY HAS RECEIVE D SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AT RS.3,48,00,000/-.THE BOOK VALU E OF THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY IS JUST RS.10/-. THERE IS NOTHING ON RE CORD THAT COULD JUSTIFY SUCH A LARGE PREMIUM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOP TED A MODUS OPERANDI TO INTRODUCE ITS OWN UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY WAY OF ISSUING SHARES AT A HIGH PREMIUM. ALSO THE SOURCE OF CAPITA L BECOMES SUSPICIOUS. 4. THE HON'BLE COURTS HAVE FROWNE UPON SUCH MODUS O PERANDI. IN THE CASE OF SOM NATH MAINI, 100 TTJ 917 THE HON'BLE ITA T HAS OBSERVED THAT A WORTHLESS COMPANY CANNOT FETCH A HIGH PRICE OF RS. 55/ SHARE EVEN THOUGH THE PAYMENTS ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNE L AND ALSO THE TRANSACTION IS THROUGH A STOCK EXCHANGE. THE HON'BL E ITAT, CHANDIGARH FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF DURGA DAS MORE, 82 ITR 540(SC). IT MAY BE N OTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOM NATH MAINI, 306. ITR 414. THE GIST OF THE DECISIONS IS GIVEN BELOW:- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. VS SOM NATH MAINU TTJ CITATION : TTJ CITATION 100 TTJ 917(CHD) ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 8 1. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT M/S ANKUR INTERNATIONAL LTD., ALTHOUGH IT IS A QUOTED COMPANY , ITS SHARES WERE NOT BEING TRANSACTED AT LUDHIANA STOCK EXCHANG E AT THE RELEVANT TIME. SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AND SOLD THROUGH THE BROKERS AND PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN CHEQ UE ON DIFFERENT DATES AS PER THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE FROM START OF THE PURCHASE OF SHARES AT THE RATE OF RS. 3 TO THE SALE OF SHARES AT RS. 55 IN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME AND SHARES BEING NOT QUOTED AT LUDHIANA STOCK EXCHANGE AND THE WAY IN WHICH DIFFER ENT INSTALMENT PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE BRO KERS AND NON-AVAILABILITY OF THE RECORDS OF THE BROKERS AND THE SHARES REMAINING IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE EVEN LONG AFTER T HE SALE OF THE SHARES DOES NOT STAND THE TEST OF PROBABILITIES . AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE, THESE TYPES OF COMPANIES JUNCTION IN THE CAPITAL MARKET W HOSE SALE PRICE IS MANIPULATED TO ASTRONOMICAL HEIGHT ONLY TO CREATE THE ARTIFICIAL TRANSACTION IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL GAIN. SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES DIFFER FROM THE NORMAL SHARE MARKET T RANSACTIONS IN WHICH THEY ARE ORDINARILY CARRIED OUT. TAKING AL L THE STEPS TOGETHER, FINAL CONCLUSION DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE HUMAN PROBABILITIES. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE 1973 CTR (SC) 500 : (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) HELD AS UNDER. 'IT IS A STORY THAT DOES NOT ACCORD WITH HUMAN PROBABILITIES. IT IS STRANGE THAT HIGH COURT FOUND FAULT WITH THE TRIBUNAL FOR NOT SWALLOWING THAT STORY. IF THAT STORY IS FOUND TO BE UNBELIEVABLE AS THE TRIBUNAL H AS FOUND AND IN OUR OPINION, RIGHTLY THAT THE DECISION S REMAINS THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE PROCEED ED FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, IT MUST BE ASSUMED TO BE HIS MONEY. IT IS SURPRISING THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS FOUND FAUL T WITH THE ITO FOR NOT EXAMINING THE WIFE AND THE FATHER-I N-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PROVING THE DEPARTMENT'S CASE. ALL ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 9 THAT WE CAN SAY IS THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS IGNORED THE FACTS OF LIFE. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE HIGH COUR T HAS TAKEN A SUPERFICIAL VIEW OF THE ONUS THAT LAY ON TH E DEPARTMENT.' 7. THE LEARNED CTT(A) ONLY GOT SWAYED BY THE ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE BY THE AO UNDER S. 131 TO BOTH THE BROKER S FROM WHOM SHARES WERE PURCHASED AND SOLD AND CAME T O THE CONCLUSION THAT SHARE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE OVERLOOKING THE MATERIAL GATHERED BY THE AO FROM TH E STATEMENTS RECORDED OF BROKER M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. AND THE OTHER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT VOLUME O F TRANSACTIONS OF JAIPUR STOCK EXCHANGE IS ONLY 600 SHARES AND 1000 SHARES. PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE BROKERS ONLY IN INSTALMENTS OVER A PERIOD OF 6-7 MONTHS. IT IS TRUE THAT WHEN TRANSACTIONS ARE THROU GH CHEQUES, IT LOOKS LIKE REAL TRANSACTION BUT AUTHORI TIES ARE PERMITTED TO LOOK BEHIND THE TRANSACTIONS AND FIND OUT THE MOTIVE BEHIND TRANSACTIONS. GENERALLY, IT IS EXPECTED THAT APPARENT IS REAL BUT IT IS NOT SACROSANCT. IF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SO WARRA NT THAT IT DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES, TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE NO N- GENUINE. IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT SHARE PRICE OF A WORTH LESS COMPANY CAN GO FROM RS. 3 TO RS. 55 IN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME, MERE PAYMENT BY CHEQUE AND RECEIPT BY CHEQUE DOES NOT RENDER A TRANSACTION GENUINE. CAPITAL GAIN TAX VAS CREATED TO OPERATE IN A REAL WORLD AND NOT THAT OF MAKE BELIEF FACTS OF THE ZASE ONLY LEAD TO THE INFE RENCE THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE AND MALE BE LIEVE ONLY TO OFT SET THE LOSS INCURRED ON THE SALE OF JE WELLERY DECLARED UNDER VDIS. IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE, ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. WE, ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 10 ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE AO. SOM NATH MAINI. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. TAEXPERT CITATION 1239 OF 2006 ITR CITATION 306 ITR 414(P&H) THE ASSESSEE INCURRED CAPITAL LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF SA LE OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND ALSO HAD SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF ALMOST EQUAL AMOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SHORT-TERM GAIN WAS NOT GENUINE INASMUCH AS TH E ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 45,000 SHARES OF M/S. ANKUR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AT VARYING RATES FROM RS. 2.0 6 TO RS. 3.1 PER SHARE AND SOLD THEM WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF SIX-SEVEN MONTHS AT THE RATE VARYING FROM RS. 47.75 PAISE TO RS. 55. THESE SHARES WERE PURCHASED THROUG H A BROKER MUNISH ARORA & CO. AND SOLD THROUGH ANOTHER BROKER M/S. SK SHARMA & CO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK BY SURPRISE THE ASTRONOMICAL RISE IN SHARE PRI CE OF A COMPANY FROM RS. 3 TO RS. 55 AND STARTED FURTHER ENQUIRY. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION MADE. THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT INCOME IS SUBJECT TO TAX IS ON THE REVENUE BUT ON THE FACTS, TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSACT ION IS GENUINE, BURDEN IS PRIMARILY ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO APPLY THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES FOR DECIDING GENUINENESS OR OTHERWISE OF A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION. MERE LEADING OF EVIDENCE TH AT THE TRANSACTION WAS GENUINE, CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVE. SUCH EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A REASONABLE WAY. GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION CAN BE REJECTED EVEN IF THE ASSESSE E LEADS EVIDENCE WHICH IS NOT TRUST-WORTHY, EVEN IF T HE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT LEAD ANY EVIDENCE ON SUCH AN ISSUE. ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 11 5. UPON ANALYSING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THERE IS NO BASIS OF ISSUING THE SHARES AT SUCH A HIGH RATE. BASED ON THESE FACTS AND ALSO THE JUDICIAL OPINION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IT GIVES A STRONG REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTR ODUCED ITS OWN UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER THE GUISE OF ISSUANCE OF S HARE AT PREMIUM AT SUCH HIGH RATE. 6. RECEIPT OF SUCH A HIGH PREMIUM IS AGAINST THE H UMAN PROBABILITY AND AND JUST CONTRARY TO VERY NATURE OF HUMAN CONDU CT AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DURGA DAS MORE, (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC). IN THE SAID DECISION THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT REVEUNE IS ENTITLED TO LOCK INTO SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY OF RECITALS M ADE IN THE DOCUMENTS. IR THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE MATTER HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF THE HUMAN PROBABILITIES. THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOT BEEN FRAMED UNDER SCRUTINY. ONLY PROCESSING WAS DONE U/S 143(1) . 7. IT IS FURTHER TO BE NOTED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT HAS ALSO DISCUSSED ABOUT THE MEANING OF INFORMATION. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. A. RAMAN AND CO .,67 ITR 11 THE SUPREME COURT HELD: 'THE EXPRESSION ' INFORMATION' IN THE CONTEXT IN WH ICH IT OCCURS MUST, IN OUR JUDGMENT, MEAN INSTRUCTION OR KNOWLEDG E DERIVED FROM AN EXTERNAL SOURCE CONCERNING FACTS OR PARTICULARS, OR AS TO LAW RELATING TO A MATTER BEAR ING ON THE ASSESSMENT.' THAT INFORMATION MUST, IT IS TRUE, HAVE COME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER AFTER THE PREV IOUS ASSESSMENT, BUT EVEN IF THE INFORMATION BE SUCH THA T IT COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED DURING THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT F ROM AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD, OR TH E FACTS DISCLOSED THEREBY OR FROM OTHER ENQUIRY OR RESEARCH INTO FACTS OR LAW, BUT WAS NOT IN FACT OBTAINED, THE JURISDICT ION OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS NOT AFFECTED.' IN MAHARAJ KUMAR KAMAL SINGH V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, [1959]35ITR1(SC) IT WAS HELD THAT THE W ORD 'INFORMATION' IN SECTION 34(L)(B) INCLUDED INFORMAT ION AS TO THE TRUE AND CORRECT STATE OF LAW, AND SO WOULD COV ER ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 12 INFORMATION AS TO RELEVANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS. THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MAY BE REPRODUCED WITH ADVANTAGE: ' IF THE WORD ' INFORMATION ' USED IN ANY OTHER PRO VISION OF THE ACT DENOTES INFORMATION AS TO FACTS OR PARTICULARS, THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE THE MEANING OF THE SAID W ORD IN SECTION 34(1 )(B). THE DENOTATION OF THE SAID WORD WOULD NATURALLY DEPEND ON THE CONTEXT OF THE PARTICULAR P ROVISIONS IN WHICH IT IS USED. IT IS THEN CONTENDED THAT SECTION S 33B AND 35 CONFER AMPLE POWERS ON THE SPECIFIED AUTHORITIES TO REVISE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER'S ORDERS AND TO RECTIFY MISTAKES RESPECTIVELY AND SO IT WOULD BE LEGITIMATE TO CONST RUE THE WORD ' INFORMATION' IN SECTION 34(L)(B) STRICTLY AN D TO CONFINE IT TO INFORMATION IN REGARD TO FACTS OR PARTICULARS . THIS ARGUMENT ALSO IS NOT VALID. IF THE WORD ' INFORMATI ON ' IN ITS PLAIN GRAMMATICAL MEANING INCLUDES INFORMATION AS T O FACTS AS WELL AS INFOIMATION AS TO THE STATE OF THE LAW. IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO LIMIT IT TO INFORMATION AS TO THE F ACTS ON THE EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATION THAT SOME CASES OF ASSESSM ENT WHICH NEED TO BE REVISED OR RECTIFIED ON THE GROUND OF MISTAKE OF LAW MAY CONCEIVABLY BE COVERED BY SECTIONS 33B A ND 35. ' IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. A. RAMAN & CO.. IT WAS SAID THAT THE EXPRESSION ' INFORMATION ' IN THE CON TEXT OF SECTION 147(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, MUST ME AN INSTRUCTION OR KNOWLEDGE DERIVED FROM EXTRANEOUS SO URCES CONCERNING FACTS OR PARTICULARS OR AS TO LAW RELATI NG TO A MATTER* BEARING ON THE ASSESSMENT. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN A RECENT DECISION, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. A. J. ZAVERI, [1968] 68 I.T.R. 594 (BOM.) AFTER A DISCUSS ION OF THE RELEVANT CASE LAW, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ' IN FORMATION' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 34(1)(B) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT. 1922, MAY CONSIST OF A DIFFERENT VIEW TAKEN OF THE FACTS ON THE RECORD BY A HIGHER TRIBUNAL ON APPEAL FROM THE INCO ME- TAXOFFICER'S DECISION. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS HELD TH AT THE DECISION OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CONST ITUTED 'INFORMATION TO THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER AS TO WHICH OF THE ASSESSABLE PARTIES WAS CHARGEABLE FOR A PARTICULAR ITEM OF INCOME. IN THE LATEST DECISION OF THIS COURT IN KB. BANSILAL ABIRCHAND FIRM V. COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WHEN T HE FIRST ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME WAS NADE BY THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER THE LATTER'S INFORMATION WAS THAT THE A SSESSE E WAS A PARTNER IN ANOTHER CONCERN KNOWN AS BISESAR HOUSE AND THAT THE INTEREST HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THAT CONCE RN IN THE CAPACITY OF A PARTNER. IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE TRIBUN AL AND THE HIGH COURT GAVE THEIR DECISION IN THE PROCEEDINGS F OR ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 13 ASSESSMENT TO TAX OF BISESAR HOUSE THAT THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER CAME TO KNOW THAT THE INTEREST WAS NOT BEIN G RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IN THE CAPACITY OF A PARTNER B UT IN ITS CAPACITY OF A FINANCIER ADVANCING MONIES TO BISESAR HOUSE AS A BANKER. IT WAS HELD THAT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER H AD NOT ACTED ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE OR ON THE CHANGE OF HIS OWN OPINION WHEN HE TOOK PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 34(L )(B). THE CORRECT POSITION HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT AND THA T MUST BE- HELD TO BE 'INFORMATION' AS A CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH HE CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 34(I)(B) WER E ATTRACTED. ' RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P . LTD. IN 291 ITR 500. I AM IN POSSESSION OF THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND FIGURES OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS FROM A.Y. 2 010-11. THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH AND HO N'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IS APPLICABLE ON THE FA CTS OF THE CASE. INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ITS INCOME FULLY & TRULLY. HENCE, I HAVE REASONS TO BEL IEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AT RS. 2,61,00,000/- HAS E SCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT FOR A.Y. 2010-11. ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148. SD/- (PARMJIT KAUR) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(5),LUDHIANA. 9. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE REPRODUCED REASONS TO BE LIEVE FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD RECEIVED DETAILS OF COMPANIES WHICH HAD RECEIVED SH ARE PREMIUM AT A HIGH RATE. THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO FIGURES IN THAT LIST. THE ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 14 ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID INFORMAT ION FORMED THE BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INTRODUCED ITS UNACCOUNTED IN COME IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION / SHARE PREMIUM. THE ASSESSING OF FICER THEREAFTER PROCEEDED TO DISCUSS / MENTION VARIOUS CASE LAWS RU NNING INTO 4 -5 PAGES, WHEREIN, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HOSE CASE IT WAS HELD THAT THE SHARE PREMIUM SHOWN TO BE RECEIVED IN THOS E CASES WAS RESULT OF BOGUS TRANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, HOW THOSE DECISIONS W ERE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE HAS NOT BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASONS RECORDED. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE HAD RECEIVED THE ONLY INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A HIGH PREMIUM ALONG WITH SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY. HOWEVER, THIS INFORMATION ALONE, IN OUR VIEW, DOES NOT CONST ITUTE ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL OR TO SAY ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL TO F ORM A BELIEF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE H AD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT OR TO SAY IN OTHER WORDS THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AN UNACCOUNTED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED SHARE AP PLICATION MONEY FROM SOME BOGUS / PAPER COMPANIES. NO INFORMATION HAS B EEN POINTED OUT IN THE REASONS RECORDED OR RECEIPT OF ANY BOGUS TRANSA CTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE NAME OF THE COMPANIES FORM WHOM THE SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED NOR THERE I S ANY ALLEGATION THAT THOSE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE NOT TRACEABLE OR T HEY WERE BOGUS / PAPER ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 15 COMPANIES INDULGED IN SHAM TRANSACTIONS. MERE INFOR MATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A HIGH PREMIUM, IN OUR VIEW, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A REASON TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED A SUSP ICION, AS MENTIONED IN THE REASONS ITSELF, REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE CAPITAL BEING NOT GENUINE OR THAT IT MAY BE A MODUS OPERANDI BY THE A SSESSEE TO INTRODUCE ITS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY WAY OF SHARE PREMIUM , HO WEVER, THIS WAS A MERE SUSPICION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT EVE N AN IOTA OF ANY INCRIMINATING TANGIBLE MATERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSE E OR EVEN OTHERWISE. THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS GENERAL AND VAGUE INFORMATION, THAT OF COURSE, CAN BE USED TO S OME EXTENT BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES TO ASCE RTAIN THE TRUE FACTS IN A CASE OF AN ONGOING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; HOWEVE R, IN A CONCLUDED CASE OF ASSESSMENT, THIS GENERAL INFORMATION WITHOU T POINTING OUT ANY INCRIMINATING INFORMATION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE A TANGIBLE INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO FORM BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE SUSPICION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, THUS, WAS NOT BASED ON ANY RELIABLE INFORM ATION OR TANGIBLE MATERIAL COMING TO HIS POSSESSION IN THIS R3ESPECT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT REASON TO BELI EVE MUST HAVE A MATERIAL BEARING ON THE QUESTION OF ESCAPEMENT OF I NCOME. IT DOES NOT MEAN A PURELY SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESS ING AUTHORITY, SUCH REASON SHOULD BE HELD IN GOOD FAITH AND CANNOT MERE LY BE A PRETENSE. ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 16 FURTHERMORE, THE REASONS TO BELIEVE MUST HAVE A RAT IONAL CONNECTION WITH OR RELEVANT BEARING ON THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF. RATIONAL CONNECTION POSTULATES THAT THERE MUST BE A DIRECT NEXUS OR LIV E LINK BETWEEN THE MATERIAL COMING TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND THE FORMATION OF BELIEF REGARDING ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. THE POWER S OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT, THOUGH WIDE, ARE N OT PLENARY. THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE ARE 'REASON TO BELIEVE' AND NO T 'REASON TO SUSPECT'. THERE CAN BE NO MANNER OF DOUBT THAT THE WORDS' REA SON TO BELIEVE' SUGGEST THAT THE BELIEF MUST BE THAT OF AN HONEST A ND REASONABLE PERSON BASED UPON REASONABLE GROUNDS AND THAT THE INCOME-T AX OFFICER MAY ACT ON DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BUT NOT ON MER E SUSPICION, GOSSIP OR RUMOUR. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WOULD BE ACTING WITH OUT JURISDICTION IF THE REASON FOR HIS BELIEF THAT THE CONDITIONS ARE S ATISFIED DOES NOT EXIST OR IS NOT MATERIAL OR RELEVANT TO THE BELIEF REQUIR ED BY THE SECTION. THE COURT CAN ALWAYS EXAMINE THIS ASPECT THOUGH THE DEC LARATION OR SUFFICIENCY OF THE REASONS FOR THE BELIEF CANNOT BE INVESTIGATED BY THE COURT. THE ENTIRE LAW AS TO WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE ' REASON TO BELIEVE' HAD SUMMED UP BY SUPREME COURT IN INCOME TAX OFFICER V LAKHMANI MEWALDAS (1976) 103 ITR 437. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPE CT CAN ALSO BE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HAR YANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PARAMJIT KAUR (2008) 311 ITR 38 (P&H), WHEREIN, MAKING IDENTICAL OBSERVATIONS THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR T HELD THAT THE IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT MATERIAL TO FORM SATISFA CTION OF THE ASSESSING ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 17 OFFICER THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED AS SESSMENT, THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICES U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT VALI D. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THIS STAGE HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE CHANDIG ARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF D.D. AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD V ACIT, ITA NOS. 349 & 350/CHD/2017 ORDER DATED 7.9.2017, WHEREIN, ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORD ED IDENTICAL REASONS TO FORM BELIEF FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. TH E COORDINATE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSUMED JURISDICTION RELYING UPON THE NON-SPECIFIC ROUTINE INFORMATION BLINDLY WITHOUT CARING TO FIRST INDEPENDENTLY CONS IDER THE SPECIFIC FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THAT THE ASSUMPTI ON OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS W RONG. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL (SUP RA) IN THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OR TO SAY IN ID ENTICAL SET OF REASONS RECORDED IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE AO HAS ASSUMED JURISDICTION RELYING UPON NON SPECIFIC ROUTINE INFORMATION BLINDLY WITHOUT CARING TO FIRST INDEPENDENTLY CONSIDER THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. THE AO IN HIS WISDOM, INSTEAD OF CARING TO REFER TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AT HAND WH ICH HE OUGHT TO HAVE FIRST CONSIDERED, HAS INSTEAD CONSIDERING THE FACTS AS CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SOM NATH MAINI AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 18 FIRST CARING TO ESTABLISH THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTI CAL WHICH WE NOTE INFACT ARE ENTIRELY DISTINGUISHABLE H AS FURTHER COMPOUNDED THE MISTAKE BY MEANDERING THROUGH THE CASE LAWS AND DECISIONS IN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND INSTEA D ATTEMPTED TO WRITE A THESIS ON WHAT WOULD CONSTITUT E INFORMATION. INSTEAD OF REFERRING IN THE REASONS RECORDED TO THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF ASSESSEE'S CASE F OR JUSTIFYING THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION, THE AO ADDRESSES THE LEGAL POSITION ON WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE INFORMATION. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IN OUR VIEW, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY AND ILLEGALLY ASSUMED JURISDICT ION IN THIS CASE TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THE REASONS POINTED OUT BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE REASONS TO FORM THE BELIE F THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN VIEW OF THIS, SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SUSTAI NABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW, THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY QUASHED. SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE LEGAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREBY, WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HENC E, AT THIS STAGE, WE DO NOT DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE WHICH HAVE BEEN RENDERED ACADEMIC IN NATURE. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE, THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1616-C-2018 M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LTD, LUDHIANA 19 ORDER COULD NOT BE PRONOUNCED EARLIER DUE TO NON-FU NCTIONING OF THE BENCH ON ACCOUNT OF CURFEW / LOCKDOWN IN THE WA KE OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15.06.2020. SD/- SD/- ( . . / N.K. SAINI) ( ! ' / SANJAY GARG) #$% / VICE PRESIDENT &' / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15. 06.2020 .. 3,(+45 65!+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 10. $& / THE APPELLANT 11. ()$& / THE RESPONDENT 12. . 7+ / CIT 13. . 7+ ( )/ THE CIT(A) 14. 58(+9 , 09 , :;<= / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 15. <>/ / GUARD FILE 3 . / BY ORDER, ? / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR