Gulab Badgujar (HUF), Thane V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1663/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1653 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: P S SHINGTE
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Opportunity of being heard; Opportunity of cross examination; Validity of assessment; Revised return; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 148; 132; 271(1)(c); 144; 139; 143(3); 142(1); 250; 201; 143(2); 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO. 1663 /P U N/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 06 - 07 GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF), 204, PASHUPATINATH C - 02 B WING, MAHADEV SANKALP COMPLEX, GANDHARE VILLAGE, NEAR KHADAKPADA CHOWK, KALYAN (WEST), THANE - 421301 . / APPELLANT PAN: AA EHG6475C VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , CENTRAL - 1, NASHIK . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.S. SHINGTE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. OJHA / DATE OF HEARING : 2 0 . 0 8 .201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06 . 0 9 .201 9 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ORDER OF CIT (A) - 1 , NASHIK , DATED 2 2 . 0 8 .201 4 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06 - 07 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER S ECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FOLLOWING CONCISE GROUND S OF APPEAL: - ITA NO. 1663 /P U N/20 1 4 GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF) 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN ISSU ING NOTICE U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON SHRI ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR AND THE CORRECT PROCEEDINGS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN I NITIATED U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN VIEW OF THIS YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE NEEDS TO BE QUASHED AND ENTIRE ORDE R NEEDS TO BE CANCELLED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN REOPENING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY PRESUMING INCORRECT FACTS THAT SALE OF JEWELLERY FOR A SUM OF RS.33,42,078/ - HAS ESCAP ED ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REALISING THE FACT THAT YOUR APPELLANT HAS OFFERED THIS INCOME IN INCOME TAX RETURN WHICH WAS FILED MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH, FURTHER LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF INVALID REOPENING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 WITHOUT DISPOSING OFF OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND WITHOUT PASSI NG SPEAKING ORDER WHICH IS PRE R EQUISITE AS PER THE DIRECTION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFT (INDIA) LTD. VS. I TO [2003 (259) ITR 19 (S C )]. THEREFORE, SUCH ORDER PASSED IS BAD IN LAW. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN TREATING RS.33,42,078/ - AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT BY DISREGARDING APPELLANTS CONTENTION IN THIS REGARDS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.33,42,078/ - WITHOUT REALISING THE FACT THAT CORRESPONDING CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF JEWELLERY TO THE TUNE OF RS.26,80,205/ - WAS ALREADY OFFERED BY YOUR APPELLANT FOR TAXATION AND THEREFORE FURTHER TAXING THE GROSS CONSIDERATION ONE MORE TIME HAS LED TO TAXING THE SAME AMOUNT TWICE. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUNDS, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), NASHIK HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER WITHOUT G IVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PERSONS WHOSE STATEMENTS ARE USED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE TO THE ABOVE GROUND, O N THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (APPEALS), NASHIK HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF INDEXATION ON COST OF ASSETS WHICH YOUR APPELLANT HAS NOT CLAIMED INADVERTENTLY WHILE FILING THE RETURN. YOUR APPELLANT SEEKS APPROPRIATE RELIEF. 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), NASHIK ERRED IN MAKING AN ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME OF RS.1,80,63,073/ - BEING ENTIRE OPENING BALANCE OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT WHICH REPRESENTS EARLIER YEARS INCOME, AND SUCH ACTION BEING BEYOND THE TIME LI MIT PRESCRIBED IN LAW, IS BAD IN LAW AND IS ALSO BEYOND THE POWERS OF LEARNED CIT(A PPEALS ). ITA NO. 1663 /P U N/20 1 4 GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF) 3 9. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), NASHIK HAS ERRED IN MAKING AN ENHANCEMENT ON A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME WHIC H IS BEYOND HIS POWERS U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME IS BAD IN LAW. 10. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT '(APPEALS), NASHIK HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INITIATE PROSECUTION PROCEEDINGS WHICH YOUR HONOUR IS REQUESTED TO CANCEL. 11. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), NASHIK HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ON ENHANCED INCOME OF RS.1,80,63,073/ - WHICH YOUR HONOUR IS REQUESTED TO CANCEL. 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. AO ERRED IN PASSING ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) THIS BEING PREREQUISITE CONDITION, ENTIRE ORDER IS VOI - AB - INITIO AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 4. THE PLEA OF LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ASSESSMENT AND IS PURELY LEGAL, HENCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL BE DECIDED FIRST. 5. WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. THE SAID ISSUE DECIDES THE JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPLETE ASSESSM ENT AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INVESTIGATION INTO FACTS, HENCE THE SAME IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 6. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE, THOUGH HE PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. CONSEQUENT THERETO, ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER ITA NO. 1663 /P U N/20 1 4 GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF) 4 SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 14 7 OF THE ACT ON 14.02.2014. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WHERE NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED , CAN ORDER BE FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT? THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE THUS, COMPLETED AND THE I SSUE WHICH HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE CIT(A) WAS ON MERITS, WITH WHICH WE ARE NOT CONCERNED AT THE MOMENT. 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED FIRST RETURN OF INCOME ON 16.08.2010, WHICH ADM ITTEDLY, WAS NON - EST. THEREAFTER, NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 28.03.2013, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE INITIAL DATES OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE H AD STRESSED THAT WHEN NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED AGAINST ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF SAME WERE VOID AND BAD IN LAW. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HAS FILED REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 16.07.2019 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER , PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE HA D DULY PARTICIPATED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 9. ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE CHANGED ITS STAND AND POINTED OUT THAT ADMITTEDLY, NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND ALSO NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ORDER PASSED ITA NO. 1663 /P U N/20 1 4 GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF) 5 UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT IS INVALID, A S THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT MUST BE ISSUED. BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT AND WHERE NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED, THEN WE HAVE TO COME TO STAGE TWO AND WHAT IS THE COURSE OF ACTION. HE STRESSED THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE COMPLETED, BUT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE. IN SUCH SCENARIO, HE ALSO STRESSED THAT PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 292B OF THE ACT CANNOT CURE THE SAID ERROR. IN THIS REGARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN S. KUMAR ENTERPRISES (SYNFABS) LTD. VS. JCIT (2005) 4 SOT 412. 10. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENU E ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE ARE AT VARIANCE, WHERE NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED AND HENCE, NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS TO BE ISSUED. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. TH E ISSUE WHICH NEEDS ADJUDICATION IS THAT WHERE NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO ASSESSEE, CAN THE ASSESSMENT BE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT? FURTHER, WHETHER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED AND NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT COULD BE ISSUED, THEN WHAT WAS COURSE OF ACTION WHICH WAS AVAILABLE FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT? 12. IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE, WE NEED FIRST TO LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ONE RETURN OF INCOME ON 16.08.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 , WHICH ADMITTEDLY WAS NON - EST RETURN AND CANNOT STAND IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS FOR ITA NO. 1663 /P U N/20 1 4 GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF) 6 REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 28.03.2013 . T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 09.12.2013. THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ON 14.02.2014. THE AFORESAID ORDER IS QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS CASE OF ASSESS EE THAT THE BASIC REQUIREMENT OF COMPLETING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT MUST BE ISSUED. LET US LOOK AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT , WHICH READS UNDER: - 143(1)... (2) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139 , OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, - ( I ) WHERE HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY CLAIM OF LOSS, EXEMPTION, DEDUCTION, ALLOWANCE OR RELIEF MADE IN THE RETURN IS INADMISSIBLE, SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE SPECIFYING PARTICULARS OF SUCH CLAIM OF LOSS, EXEMPTION, DEDUCTION, ALLOWANCE OR RELIEF AND REQUIRE HIM, ON A DATE TO BE SPECIFIED THEREIN TO PRODUCE, OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED, ANY EVIDENCE OR PARTICULARS SPECIFIED THEREIN OR ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY RELY, IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CL AIM: PROVIDED THAT NO NOTICE UNDER THIS CLAUSE SHALL BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2003; ( II ) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (I), IF HE CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERSTA TED THE INCOME OR HAS NOT COMPUTED EXCESSIVE LOSS OR HAS NOT UNDER - PAID THE TAX IN ANY MANNER, SHALL SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM, ON A DATE TO BE SPECIFIED THEREIN, EITHER TO ATTEND HIS OFFICE OR TO PRODUCE, OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED , ANY EV IDENCE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY RELY IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN: PROVIDED THAT NO NOTICE UNDER CLAUSE (II) SHALL BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN IS FURNISHED. 13. THE START OF SECTION IS WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT OR IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 1663 /P U N/20 1 4 GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF) 7 ADMITTEDLY, THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE AS NO RETURN OF INCOME HA D BEEN FURNISHE D BY ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT OR IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT. 14. NOW, LET US LOOK AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, WHICH AT THE RELEVANT TIME READ AS UNDER: - 143(3) ON THE DAY SPECIFIED IN THE NOTIC E ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (2), OR AS SOON AFTERWARDS AS MAY BE, AFTER HEARING SUCH EVIDENCE AS THE ASSESSEE MAY PRODUCE AND SUCH OTHER EVIDENCE AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REQUIRE ON SPECIFIED POINTS, AND AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL W HICH HE HAS GATHERED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, BY AN ORDER IN WRITING, MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND DETERMINE THE SUM PAYABLE BY HIM OR REFUND OF ANY AMOUNT DUE TO HIM ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ASSESSMENT. 15. THE RE QUIREMENT OF SECTION IS THAT AFTER ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) AND AFTER HEARING SUCH EVIDENCES AND AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT SUCH PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS IN THE HANDS OF ASS ESSEE. ONCE NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED, THEN NO ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 16. THE SECOND STAGE WHICH NEEDS ADJUDICATION IS WHAT HAPPENS IN SUCH SCENARIO? THEN WE MUST LOOK AT THE OTHER PR OVISIONS OF THE ACT, I N THE PRESENT CASE, WHICH IS SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE SAME, WE MAY REFER TO THE PROVISIONS OF SAID SECTION, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 144 (1) IF ANY PERSON ( A ) FAILS TO MAKE THE RETURN REQUIRED UNDER SUB - SECTIO N (1) OF SECTION 139 AND HAS NOT MADE A RETURN OR A REVISED RETURN UNDER SUB - SECTION (4) OR SUB - SECTION (5) OF THAT SECTION, OR ( B ) FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE TERMS OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH A DIRECTION ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (2A) OF THAT SECTION, OR ( C ) HAVING MADE A RETURN, FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE TERMS OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143, ITA NO. 1663 /P U N/20 1 4 GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF) 8 THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GATHERED, SHALL, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, MAKE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT AND DETERMINE THE SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ASSESSMENT : PROVIDED THAT SUCH OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY SERVING A NOTICE CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE, ON A DATE AND TIME TO BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT : PROVIDED FURT HER THAT IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO GIVE SUCH OPPORTUNITY IN A CASE WHERE A NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 HAS BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THE MAKING OF AN ASSESSMENT UNDER THIS SECTION. (2) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION AS THEY STOOD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THEIR AMENDMENT BY THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987 (4 OF 1988), SHALL APPLY TO AND IN RELATION TO ANY ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988, OR ANY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND REFERENCES IN THIS SECTI ON TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS REFERENCES TO THOSE PROVISIONS AS FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE AND APPLICABLE TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 17. CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 144(1) OF THE ACT TALKS OF FAILURE TO FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT OR UNDER SUB - SECTIONS (4) OR (5) OF THE SAID SECTION. CLAUSE (B) TALKS OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL TERMS OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT AND CLAUSE (C) TALKS OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN SUCH SCENARIO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO PASS AN ORDER TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS OF ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 18. IN THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT AND HAD FAILED EVEN IN TERMS OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THE POWER TO PASS AN ORDER TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT. THE THIRD CONDITION OF HAVING FILED RETURN OF INCOME AND NO T COMPLYING WITH NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DO NOT APPLY TO THE PRESENT FACTS. IN SUCH SCENARIO, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT SUFFERS ITA NO. 1663 /P U N/20 1 4 GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF) 9 FROM INFIRMITY AND THE ACT ITSELF PROVIDES AN ALTERNATE FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. 19. THE CONNECTED ISSUE WHICH ARISES IS WHETHER THE DEFECT IN APPLYING THE SAID SECTION IS CURABLE UNDER SECTION 292B OF THE ACT OR NOT ? 20. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN S.KUMAR ENTERPRISES (SYNFABS) LTD. VS. JCIT (SUPRA) HAD CONSIDERED THE ASPECTS OF THE CASE AND HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 8. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, AND DULY CONSIDERED THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION AS ALSO FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS BY AND LARGE COVERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH DEC ISION IN THE CASE OF RAJ KUMAR CHAWLA (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EVEN IN THE CASE OF A REOPENED ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 147, THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN SECTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO S. 139 IS TO BE FOLLOWED. THIS SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORIC ALLY CONCLUDED THAT '....WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE RETURN FILED PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE UNDER S. 148 OF THE ACT MUST BE ASSUMED AND TREATED TO BE A RETURN FILED UNDER S. 139 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT MUST THEREAFTER BE MADE UNDER S. 143 OR 144 OF THE ACT AFTER COMPLYING WITH ALL THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS' AND THAT 'ACCORDINGLY, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE PERIOD STIPULATED IN THE PROVISO THEREUNDER'. THE WHOLE THEORY OF AS SESSMENT UNDER S. 147 PER SE HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY REJECTED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT 'S. 148 DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY METHODOLOGY FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME ON REASSESSMENT OR ASSESSMENT. ON THE CONTRARY, IT CREATES A L EGAL FICTION THAT SUCH RETURN WILL BE TREATED AS ONE MADE UNDER S. 139'. THE SAID DECISION FURTHER ADDS, AND WHAT HAS BEEN THEN ADDED IS VERY IMPORTANT IN THE CONTEXT OF ISSUE BEFORE US, THAT 'BY THE CREATION OF SUCH LEGAL FICTION, ALL THE PROCEDURES PRESC RIBED IN, AND SUBSEQUENT TO, S. 139 WILL APPLY IN TOTO'. THAT MEANS AS A RESULT OF SUCCESSFUL REOPENING OF AN ASSESSMENT, THE AO ONLY GETS BACK TO THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE TIME FOR STARTING THE NORMAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS AVAILABLE TO HIM. TO THAT EXTENT, THE CLOCK IS SET BACK FOR HIM. HOWEVER, IF EVEN AFTER THIS ADVANTAGE, HE DOES NOT COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS AVAILABLE TO HIM UNDER THESE PROCEDURES, HE MISSES THE BUS AGAIN. THE MAIN EFFECT OF THE REOPENING OF AN ASSESSMENT, IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AO DOES NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO TAKE UP THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE TIME FRAME ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE TO INITIATE AND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT BY SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN HAS EXPIRED, THE AO BY THE VIRTUE OF A LEGALLY VALID REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, CAN STILL INITIATE AND FRAME THE ASSESSMENT. THE PROCEDURE UNDER S. 142, 143 OR 144, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS, HOWEVER, TO BE FOLLOWED. IT IS ALSO NOT NECESSARY THAT IN EACH OF THE CASE OF SUCCESSFUL REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSMENT OF THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE IS TO BE DONE ONLY UNDER S. 143(3). THERE CAN BE SITUATIONS WHEN AN ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 143(3) MAY NOT BE NECESSARY AND THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT COULD BE PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED AND DESIRABLE. TAKE FOR EXAMPLE A CASE IN WHICH AN ASSESSMENT IS REOPENED ITA NO. 1663 /P U N/20 1 4 GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF) 10 BECAUSE AN ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED A PARTICULAR INCOME WHICH IS CLEARLY TAXABLE IN VIEW OF THE CURRENT LEGAL POSITION. IN TH E RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER S. 147, THE ASSESSEE OFFERS THAT INCOME TO TAX AND PAYS THE DUE TAXES THEREON. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE AO MAY AS WELL CONCLUDE THAT SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IS NOT NECESSARY. THERE CAN BE OTHER SITUATION IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE OFFERS AN INCOME TO TAX BY WAY OF BELATED RETURN AND THE ONLY WAY TO REGULARIZE IT IS ISSUANCE OF A REASSESSMENT NOTICE UNDER S. 147. WHAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE UNDER S. 143 BECAUSE THE TIME LIMIT FOR FRAMING THE NORMAL ASSESSMENT HAVING EXPIRE D, CAN BE DONE UNDER S. 143 R/W S. 147 UPON THE SUCCESSFUL REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. IN THAT SENSE IT SETS THE CLOCK BACK BUT THEN THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE PROCEDURES LAID DOWN UNDER SS. 142, 143 AND 144. IN SOME OF THE OLD AMNESTY SCHEMES, THE NOTIC ES UNDER S. 147 WERE ROUTINELY ISSUED BUT THE ASSESSMENTS WERE STILL COMPLETED UNDER S. 143(1)(A) BECAUSE THE AO ANYWAY COULD NOT HAVE QUESTIONED THE IT RETURNS FILED UNDER THE AMNESTY SCHEME. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 147 PER SE. A REGU LAR ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 143(3) AND A REOPENED ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 143(3) R/W S. 147 HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME PROCEDURE AND ARE TWO SPECIES BELONGING TO THE SAME GENUS. WHAT THUS FOLLOWS IS THAT S. 147 OR NO S. 147, THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE UNDER S. 143 OR 144, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS TO BE FOLLOWED. 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 17TH JUNE, 1998. AS ON THAT DATE BEYOND DISPUTE, THERE WAS NO IT RETURN IN EXISTENCE AVAILABLE FOR BEING SUBJECTED TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCED URE. THE ASSESSEES LETTER DT. 12TH NOV., 1998 WAS ALSO NOT FILED BEFORE THAT DATE AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE AO TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE. WE ARE ALSO UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SUGGESTION THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN COULD BE A UTOMATICALLY TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UPON EXPIRY OF THIRTY DAYS TIME LIMIT ALLOWED TO FILE THE IT RETURN. SO FAR AS FILING OF AN IT RETURN IS CONCERNED, NOTHING IS TO BE INFERRED; NOTHING IS TO BE IMPLIED. EITHER THERE HAS TO BE A RETURN FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THERE HAS TO BE A REQUEST FROM THE ASSESSEE TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN AS ONE FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE. WHEN THERE IS NO VALID RETURN IN EXISTENCE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY VALID ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) EITHER. THE ISSUANC E OF NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) PRESUPPOSES EXISTENCE OF A VALID IT RETURN. WHEN THERE IS NO RETURN IN EXISTENCE, NO NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) CAN BE VALIDLY ISSUED. SEC. 143(3) UNAMBIGUOUSLY REFERS TO THE 'NOTICE SPECIFIED UNDER SUB - S. (2) (OF S. 143)' AND, THER EFORE, IT IS A SINE QUA NON FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 143(3) THAT THERE HAS TO BE A NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2). WHEN THERE IS NO VALID NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) IN EXISTENCE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY VALID ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 143(3). SINCE THERE WAS NO VALID RETURN IN E XISTENCE AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE, THE NOTICE HAS TO BE HELD AS NON EST. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE CANCELLED FOR THIS REASON ITSELF AND WITHOUT GOING ANY FURTHER INTO THE MATTER. THE QUESTION THEN ARISES AS TO WHAT IS THE REMEDY IN CASE AN ASSESSEE CHOOSES TO IGNORE THE NOTICE UNDER S. 147. IT IS OPEN TO THE AO IN SUCH A CASE TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER S. 142(1) AND THEN TO COLLECT FURTHER DETAILS UNDER S. 142. THE WORDINGS 'WHERE SUCH PERSON HAS NOT MADE A RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER S UB - S. (1) OF S. 139, IN THAT CASE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 148(2), IS TO BE READ AS 'WHERE SUCH PERSON HAS NOT MADE A RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB - S. (1) OF S. 148. THE ASSESSMENT CAN THUS FOLLOW UNDER S. 144 AFTER GIVING AN O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED ON THE BASIS OF BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT. UNDOUBTEDLY, WHERE A NOTICE UNDER S. 142(1) IS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THIS OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IS NOT NECESSARY. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, NEITHER ANY NOTICE UNDER S. 142(1) IS ISSUED, NOR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING UNDER S. 144 IS ISSUED. IT IS NOT, AND IT CANNOT BE, TREATED AS A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT EITHER. THE NEXT QUESTION THEN IS WHETHER AN EARLIER NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) CAN VALID ATE THE PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORIGINAL RETURN BEING TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE. ITA NO. 1663 /P U N/20 1 4 GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF) 11 WHEN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S. 143(2) HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INVALID, IT CANNOT HAVE ANY CONSEQUENCES IN LAW. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT REVENUE ITSELF DOES NOT AC CEPT THE VALIDITY OF THE LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEES TAX CONSULTANT ON 12TH NOV., 1998. THEREFORE, THIS QUESTION ITSELF BECOMES ACADEMIC. IT CANNOT BE OPEN TO REVENUE TO CONTEND THAT THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEES TAX CONSULTANT IS WITHOUT ANY LEGA L CONSEQUENCES, AND THEN ALSO CONTEND THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE LETTER, THE RETURN ALREADY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE. IN ANY EVENT, EVEN THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY TRIBUN ALS DECISION IN THE CASE OF JYOTI PAT RAM (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS VITIATED IN LAW WHERE NO NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) IS ISSUED BY THE AO AFTER THE ASSESSEES INTIMATION TO THE EFFECT THAT ORIGINAL RETURN MAY BE TREATED AS A RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD THAT NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) PRIOR TO THIS DATE HAS TO BE HELD AS NON EST. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH. THEREFORE, EVE N IF ONE IS TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT BY THE VIRTUE OF ASSESSEES TAX CONSULTANTS LETTER DT. 12TH NOV., 1998, THE ORIGINAL RETURN COULD BE TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE ASSESSMENT WILL STILL HAVE TO BE TREATED AS A LEGALLY INVALID ASSESS MENT BECAUSE, AS IS THE WELL SETTLED LAW, THERE CANNOT BE A LEGALLY VALID ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 143(3) WITHOUT A LEGALLY VALID NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2). THE NOTICE ISSUED PRIOR TO 12TH NOV., 1998, ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, HAS TO BE TREATED AS NON EST. FOR TH IS REASON ALSO, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. AS REGARDS LEARNED CIT (DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE)S ARGUMENTS ON THE LINES THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE COURSE OF THESE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE FULLY JUSTIFIED ON MERITS, T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS TAKING COVER OF TECHNICALITIES AND THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATES IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE IS TO BE TREATED AS ACQUIESCED THE JURISDICTION, WE MAY ONLY ADD THAT, AS IS WELL SETTLED IN LAW, THERE CANNOT BE ACQUIESCENCE TO J URISDICTION AND SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL ON THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION, THE WHOLE THEORY OF ACQUIESCED IS IRRELEVANT. THE QUESTION OF MERITS OF ADDITION CAN ONLY BE RELEVANT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS HELD TO BE VALID. THE MERITS OF ADDITION CANNOT H AVE ANY ROLE IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT THE REOPENING IS VALID. LEARNED CIT (DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE)S REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF S. 292B IS ALSO OF NO AVAIL BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF S. 292B CANNOT BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE FOR HOLDING AN ASSESSMEN T VALID EVEN ON NON - ISSUANCE OF A MANDATORY NOTICE. WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS VITIATED IN LAW BECAUSE THERE IS NO VALID NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) WHICH IS SINE QUA NON FOR AN ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 143(3). THE NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) HAS BEEN HELD TO BE VITIATED IN LAW BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RETURN IN EXISTENCE AT THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND SINCE EXISTENCE OF A VALID RETURN IS SINE QUA NON FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2). THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS NO VALID RETURN IN EX ISTENCE AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. ON THIS SET OF FACTS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND AS TO HOW THE PROVISIONS OF S. 292B CAN TURN THIS FUNDAMENTAL ILLEGALITY INTO 'A MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION WHICH S. 292B SEEKS TO COVER. THIS ARGUMENT COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PERHAPS IN A CASE WHERE ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 143(3) WAS MANDATORY IN EVERY CASE OF REOPENED ASSESSMENT AND THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) WAS ONLY A MECHANICAL FORMALITY BUT THEN THAT IS NOT THE LEGAL POSITION. THE OPTION FOR ASSESSM ENT UNDER S. 143(3) IS, AS WE HAVE HELD EARLIER, IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC CONSEQUENCE OF THE SUCCESSFUL REOPENING UNDER S. 148. BY NO STRETCH OF LOGIC, S. 292B CAN VEST AN AO WITH THE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS UNDER S. 143(3) IN ALL CASES WHERE THE ASSESSMENT IS R EOPENED. THAT IS NOT THE SCHEME OF THE ACT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, UNABLE TO APPROVE LEARNED CIT (DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE)S RELIANCE ON THE PROVISIONS OF S. 292B EITHER. 10. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT IS INDEED IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 143 AND CONTRARY TO THE SCHEME OF THE ACT. FOR THESE REASONS, ITA NO. 1663 /P U N/20 1 4 GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF) 12 THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SET ASIDE. AS WE HAVE DECIDED THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF THIS PRELIMIN ARY OBJECTION ITSELF, ALL OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS AND WE SEE NO NECESSITY TO DEAL WITH THE SAME ON MERITS. 21. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT SECTION 292B OF THE ACT CANNOT BE PRESSED INTO ACTION TO CURE THE DEFECT IN THE ASSESSMENT M ADE IN THE PRESENT CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS BOTH INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. THUS, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. WE DO NOT ADJUDICATE THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 22 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 6 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 6 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 9 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 1 , NASHIK ; 4. THE CIT(CENTRAL), NAGPUR ; 5. 6. , , / DR B , ITAT, PUNE ; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE