Shirish Uttamchand Raisoni, Jalgaon V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1772/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1639 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAY KAWADIA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , ! , # $ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.1772/PN/2014 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SHIRISH UTTAMCHAND RAISONI, 22, NEAR DHYAN MANDIR, GANAPATI NAGAR, JALGAON 425 001 PAN NO.AANPR5878C . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, WARD - 1(1), JALGAON . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VINAY KAWADIA / REVENUE BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21-07-2014 OF THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 4 GROUNDS IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT TH E TIME OF HEARING, DID NOT PRESS GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 3 FOR WHICH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ABOVE 2 GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED. / DATE OF HEARING :01.06.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:30.06.2016 2 ITA NO.1772/PN/2014 3. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH REQUIRES ADJUDICATION READS AS UNDER : 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE NOTICE U/S.148 & PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO SINCE THE AO FAILED TO SERVE THE EFFE CTIVE NOTICE U/S.148 WITHIN PERIOD OF SIX YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS PROVIDED U/S.149(1)(B) TO THE EXTENT T HE REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 WERE NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN LIMITATION PERIOD OF SIX YEARS. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DEALER IN SHARES AND SECURITIES. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AN D SEIZURE ACTION U/S.132 OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE CASE OF CHOR IA GROUP OF CASES CERTAIN DOCUMENTS INCLUDING ROUGH CASH BOOK WER E SEIZED. IT WAS NOTICED FROM THE SAID CASH BOOK SEIZED DU RING THE SEARCH ACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED RS.1,21,50 ,000/- AND EARNED INTEREST OF RS.1,98,675/- DURING F.Y. 2004-05. SINCE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT/RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 31-03-2006, THE AO, AFT ER RECORDING REASONS ON 30-03-2012 ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 O F THE I.T. ACT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON HIM ON 31-03-2012. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTIC E STATED THAT THE RETURN FILED ON 31-03-2006 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REQUESTED FOR SUPPLY OF REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.14 8 AND THE AO SUPPLIED THE REASONS RECORDED ON 22-05-2012. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION SEEKING COPY OF MATERIAL INFORMATION ON RECORD FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148. T HE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE BY T HE AO FROM TIME TO TIME AS AND WHEN THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTION AGAINST INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.148 WHICH WAS ALSO DULY DISPOSE D 3 ITA NO.1772/PN/2014 OFF BY THE AO. THE AO THEREAFTER COMPLETED THE ASSESSME NT U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 ON 20-03-2013 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.33,33,405/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.25,000/-. 5. BEFORE CIT(A) APART FROM CHALLENGING THE ADDITION THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION IS A.Y. 2005-06 AND SIX YEARS AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR LAPSED ON 31-03-2012 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 ON 22-05-2012, I.E. AFTER EXPIRY OF SIX YEARS. THEREFORE, THE N OTICE ISSUED U/S.148 AND PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THEREOF COULD NO T BE UPHELD. 6. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) REJECTED THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE U/S.148 WA S ISSUED WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF SIX YEARS, I.E. ON OR BEFORE 31-03-2012. THE ASSESSEE DEMANDED THE COPY OF REASON S RECORDED VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 03-04-2012 AND THE REAS ONS WERE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22-05-2013. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS WITHIN REASONABLE PERIOD AS CONTEMPLATED BY HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF G.K.N. DRIVESHAFTS INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 259 ITR 19. 7. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY VS. CIT REPORTED IN 308 ITR 3 8 SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS 4 ITA NO.1772/PN/2014 HELD THAT A NOTICE U/S.148 WITHOUT THE COMMUNICATION OF TH E REASONS IS MEANINGLESS. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHEN A NO TICE IS ISSUED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 6 YEARS BUT THE REASONS HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED WITHIN THAT PERIOD, ANY PROCEEDINGS PURSUAN T THERETO WOULD BE HIT BY THE BAR OF LIMITATION. THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND THE COMMUNICATION AND FURNISHING OF REASONS GO HAND IN HAND. HE SUBMITTED THAT FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIO N THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BALWANT RA I WADHWA VS. ITO VIDE ITA NO.4806/DEL/2010 ORDER DATED 14 -01- 2011 HAS HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND THE COMMUNICAT ION AND FURNISHING THE REASONS GO HAND IN HAND. THE REASONS ARE TO BE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF SIX YEA RS. IF IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE, THEN VALIDITY U/S.148 COULD NOT BE UPH ELD. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE REASONS RECORDED WERE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEAR AND REASONS WERE NOT ACCOMPANIED WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BECOME VO ID AB- INITIO. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) ON THIS ISSUE BE SET ASIDE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 9. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAN D STRONGLY CHALLENGED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF A.G. HOLDINGS PVT. L TD. VS. ITO REPORTED IN 352 ITR 364 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION DISTINGUISHING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING COMPA NY 5 ITA NO.1772/PN/2014 HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF LAW THAT REASON S RECORDED FOR INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD ALS O ACCOMPANY THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148. HE ALSO RELIED ON VA RIOUS OTHER DECISIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE IS JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE UP HELD AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE P APER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSID ERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE IS A.Y. 2005-06. THE A O HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 ON 31-30-2012 AFTER DULY RECORDING THE REASONS FOR ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPON SE TO THE SAME HAD STATED ON 03-04-2012 THAT THE RETURN FILE D ON 31- 03-2006 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO N OTICE U/S.148. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REQUESTED FOR SUPPLY OF REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 AND SUCH REASONS WERE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22-05-2012. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF H ONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURIN G COMPANY (SUPRA) THE REASONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED ALO NG WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 BEFORE THE END OF SIX YEAR S FROM THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX YEAR S, HOWEVER, THE REASONS WERE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AFTE R A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS AND SUCH REASONS WERE NOT ACCOMPA NIED WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 AND THEREFORE THE ENTIRE REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BECOME VOID AB-INITIO. 6 ITA NO.1772/PN/2014 11. WE DO NOT FIND FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF A.G. HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. V S. ITO REPORTED IN 353 ITR 364 DISTINGUISHED ITS EARLIER DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF LAW THAT REASON S RECORDED FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD ALSO ACCOMPANY THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148. THE RELEVANT OBSER VATION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT FROM PARA 10 ONWARDS REA D AS UNDER: 10. IT WAS HOWEVER CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE PETI TIONER, ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. VS. CIT AND ANR (2009) 308 ITR 38, THAT THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS FROM THE EN D OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE IN VALID. IT IS CONTENDED-THIS CONTENTION IS REFERRED TO IN PARA 12 OF THE REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER-THAT IF REASON S RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 149(1), THE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE WOULD BE HIT BY THE BAR OF LIMITATION. I T IS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH THE NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 148 WAS ISSUED ON 15.3.2011, THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE SAME W ERE GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER ONLY ON 30.8.2011, WHICH WAS BEYON D THE PERIOD OF 6 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE INVALI D. IT IS NECESSARY TO REPRODUCE SECTION 149(1): '(1) NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 SHALL BE ISSUED FOR T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, - (A) IF FOUR YEARS HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE END OF THE R ELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS THE CASE FALLS UNDER CLAUSE (B); (B) IF FOUR YEARS, BUT NOT MORE THAN SIX YEARS, HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS THE INCOME CH ARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS TO OR IS LIKELY TO AMOUNT TO ONE LAKH RUPEES OR MORE FOR THAT YEAR. EXPLANATION. - IN DETERMINING INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 2 OF SECTION 147 SHALL APPLY AS THEY APPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT SECTION.' 7 ITA NO.1772/PN/2014 THE OBJECTION OF THE PETITIONER, AS WE UNDERSTAND TH E SAME, IS NOT THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF 6 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMEN T YEAR. THE OBJECTION IS ONLY THAT THE REASONS RECORDED WERE PROVI DED BY THE RESPONDENT AFTER A PERIOD OF 6 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CONTENTION IS THAT IN SUCH A CASE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT CITED SUPRA. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION. THE RECORD PRODUCED BEFORE US BY THE LD. STANDING COUNSEL SHOWS THAT SANCTION FOR THE PROPOSAL TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS ACCORDED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON 9.3.2011. THE NOTICE TO REOPEN THE ASSE SSMENT WAS ISSUED ON 15.3.2011. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSME NT HAD BEEN RECORDED ON 9.3.2011. THESE WERE HOWEVER SUPPLIE D TO THE PETITIONER ONLY ON 30.8.2011. THERE IS NO REQUIREMEN T IN SECTION 147 OR SECTION 148 OR SECTION 149 THAT THE REASONS RE CORDED SHOULD ALSO ACCOMPANY THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148. TH E REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 149(1) IS ONLY THAT THE NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 148 SHALL BE ISSUED. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT IT SHO ULD ALSO BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THERE IS ALSO NO REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 148(2) THAT THE REASONS REC ORDED SHALL BE SERVED ALONG WITH THE NOTICE OF REOPENING THE ASSESSM ENT. THE REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS MANDATORY, IS ONLY THAT BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECORD HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO. AFTER THE DECISION OF THE SUPR EME COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS DUTY BOUND TO SUPPLY THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT TO THE ASSESSEE, AFTER THE ASSESSEE FILES THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 AND ON HIS MAKING A REQUEST TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THAT EFFECT. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE PETITIONER IS THAT THE RE ASONS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE D IFFERENT FROM THE REASONS PURPORTEDLY RECORDED IN THE FORM ATT ACHED TO THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE H IGH COURT. THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE HAD TAKEN A SPECIFIC PLEA THAT IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY ALLEGATION THAT HE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY A ND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE NOTICE AFTER 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WAS APPARENTLY TO OVERCOME THIS OBJECTION THAT THE REASONS ATTACHED TO THE COUNTER AF FIDAVIT HAD CONTAINED A STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D FAILED TO FURNISH FULL AND TRUE PARTICULARS AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT. THESE REASONS HAD NEVER BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE COURSE OF HEARING O F THE WRIT PETITION THAT THEY HAD SURFACED. THIS COURT HELD THAT IF THE DATE OF FILING OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT WAS TAKEN AS THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF THE REASONS, THEN THERE WAS AN UNREASO NABLE DELAY OF MORE THAN 3 YEARS BETWEEN THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE MADE A REQUEST FOR SUPPLY OF THE REASONS AN D THE DATE ON WHICH THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED. IT IS NOTE WORTHY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A REQUEST TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 11TH MAY, 2004, WHEREAS THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED ON 5TH NOVEMBER, 2007. IT WAS ON THIS BASIS THAT THE DIVISION BENCH OF TH IS COURT HELD THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 COULD NOT HAVE BE EN ISSUED BEYOND A PERIOD OF 6 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSME NT YEAR WHICH IN THAT CASE WAS 1998-99. THE LAST DATE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE WAS 31.3.2005. IT MAY THUS BE NOTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT 8 ITA NO.1772/PN/2014 IN HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. (SUPRA) TURNED ON THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THAT CASE, WHERE TWO SETS OF REASONS HA D BEEN RECORDED, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE FIRST SET OF R EASONS THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION OF NON-DISCLOSURE OF PRIMARY FACTS BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ONLY IN THE SECOND SET OF REASONS RECORDED WHICH SURFACED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, THAT THE OMISSION ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH FULL AND TRUE PARTICULARS HAD BEEN SP ECIFICALLY MENTIONED. THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT HAD BEEN FILED WAY BEYOND THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF 6 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR. IT WAS ON THESE FACTS THAT IT WAS HELD THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INVALID. IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE TH AT THE RECORDING OF THE REASONS UNDER SECTION 148(2) SHALL PRECEDE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148(1) AS INDICATED CLEARLY BY THE WORDS 'BEFORE ISSUING ANY NOTICE UNDER THIS SECTION'. THE RE CORDING OF PROPER REASONS IN THE CITED JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AS 5.11. 2007, THE DATE ON WHICH THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED. THAT DAY ITSELF WAS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 6 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 1998-99. IF A NOTICE ON THE BASIS OF THOSE RECORDED R EASONS WERE TO BE ISSUED IN THE CITED CASE UNDER SECTION 148(1), THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE ONLY EITHER ON 5.11.2007 OR LATER, BECA USE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE CANNOT PRECEDE THE RECORDING OF THE REASONS. T HEREFORE, THE REAL RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, IS TH AT THE REASSESSMENT WAS INVALID BECAUSE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148(1), HAD IT BEEN ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS RECORDED ON 5.11.2007, WOULD HAVE BEEN HOPELESSLY TIME BARRED. IN OUR OPINION, THIS IS THE BASIS UPON WHICH THE JUDGMENT OF HARYANA AC RYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. (SUPRA) WAS RENDERED BY THIS COURT. 11. THE FACTUAL SITUATION IN THE CASE BEFORE US IS HOW EVER DIFFERENT. THERE ARE NO TWO SETS OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE RESPOND ENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE REASONS WERE RECORDED ON 9.3.2011. IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THESE REASONS THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE ADDITION AL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS OBTAINED AND THEREAFTER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED ON 15.3.2011. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE PETITIONER. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 9.3.2011 WERE SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER ON 30.8.2011. THESE R EASONS UNDISPUTEDLY WERE THE SAME AS WERE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON 9.3.2011. THE ONLY FEATURE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 4 MONTHS IN SUPPLYING THE REASON S RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. THIS BY ITSEL F CANNOT INVALIDATE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE FACTUAL SIT UATION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN HARYANA ACRYLI C MANUFACTURING CO. (SUPRA). THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN TH AT CASE CAN THEREFORE HARDLY HAVE ANY APPLICATION TO THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER IS REJECTED. 12. SINCE THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISTINGUISHED AND THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT DECISION HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO 9 ITA NO.1772/PN/2014 REQUIREMENT OF LAW THAT REASONS RECORDED FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD ALSO ACCOMPANY NOTICE IS SUED U/S.148, THEREFORE, THE LATER DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT SHALL PREVAIL. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN T HE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE VOID AS THE NOTICE U/S.148 WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED WITH THE REASONS RECORDED AND SUCH RE ASONS WERE NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SI X YEARS. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30-06-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 30 TH JUNE, 2016. ) *#,! -! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A) - 2, NASHIK 4. 5. 6. THE CIT-2, NASHIK $ ''(, (, / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; - / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // // $ ' //TRUE /0 ' ( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (, / ITAT, PUNE