M/s. Sunhill Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 191/RJT/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94058 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH KUMAR; M L MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: RK DOSHI
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Tangible material
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 191, 192, 193 AND 194/RJT/2013 / ASSTT YEARS: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2006-08 M/S. SUNHILL CERAMICS PVT. LTD. 8-A, NATIONAL HIGHWAY VILLAGE DHUVA, TAL. WANKANER DIST. RAJKOT. VS ACIT, CENT.CIR.1 RAJKOT. ./ ITA NO.156, 157, 158 AND 159/RJT/2013 / ASSTT.YEARS: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 ACIT, CENT.CIR.1 RAJKOT VS M/S.SUN HILL CERAMICS P.LTD. 8-A, NATIONAL HIGHWAY VILLAGE DHUVA, TAL. WANKANER DIST. RAJKOT. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI M.L. MEENA, CIT-DR AND SHRI AVINASH KUMAR, DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI R.K. DOSHI, CA / DATE OF HEARING : 19/05/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/05/2015 / O R D E R PER BENCH: 1. ITA NO.156/RJT/2013 AND 191/RJT/2013 ARE CROSS A PPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2004-05 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD DATED 7.2.201 3. ITA NO.157/RJT/2013 AND 192/RJT/2013 ARE CROSS APP EALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2005-06 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD DATED 7.2.201 3. ITA NO.156/RJT/2013 (SUNHILL CERAMIC VS. ACIT, RAJK OT)-8 APPEALS 2 ITA NO.158/RJT/2013 AND 193/RJT/2013 ARE CROSS APP EALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2006-07 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD DATED 7.2.201 3. ITA NO.159/RJT/2013 AND 194/RJT/2013 ARE CROSS APP EALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD DATED 7.2.201 3. 2. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEALS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED C OMMON GROUND NO.1, 2, 3 AND 4, CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY THE AO, AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER: 1. THE ORDER OF THELD.CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND CON TRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO I N LAW IN HOLDING THAT, RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT I S BASED ON SUFFICIENT TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH RELATES TO THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT THERE IS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL NECESSARY FACTS NEC ESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT AND THEREBY DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APP EAL RELATED TO REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. THAT ON FACTS AS ALSO I N LAW THE REOPENING OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN HELD AS INVALID AND TH E SAME MAY KINDLY BE HELD AS INVALID. 3. THE ID. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF FUTURA CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED, STATING THAT THE SAME IS RENDERED UNDER VAT ACT, THOUGH, CONTRARY TO THAT, HE HAS VALIDATED REOPENIN G OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT WHICH IS YET TO BE ADJUDICATED. 4. THAT ON FACTS AS ALSO THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT A ND HELD THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AS INVALID. THE REOPENING M AY KINDLY BE HELD AS INVALID. ITA NO.156/RJT/2013 (SUNHILL CERAMIC VS. ACIT, RAJK OT)-8 APPEALS 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE INST ANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSTT.Y EAR 2004-05 ON 27.8.2004 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.33,90,80 0/-. SIMILARLY FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE FIL ED ITS RETURN ON 25.8.2005 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.29,22,940/- . SIMILARLY FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 11.9.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS .74,37,030/-. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSE E FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 2.11.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS .1,39,60,780/-. 4. THEREAFTER, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48 OF THE ACT FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX ON 22.3.2011 FOR THE ASSTT.YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AND ON 16.3.2011 FO R THE ASSTT.YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08, AND THE REASONS RECORDED FOR R EOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT READS AS UNDER. THE REASONS RECORDED FO R THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR. 1. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANU FACTURING OF CERAMIC TILES. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CENTRAL IZED WITH THIS CIRCLE WITH THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ASSESSING THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE, IN LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS FINANCIAL IRREGUL ARITIES NOTED AND UNEARTHED BY THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CENTRAL EXC ISE INTELLIGENCE, AHMEDABAD ZONAL UNIT. AS PER THEIR FI NDING, THERE IS SUPPRESSION OF SALE OF RS.10,80,86,570/- AND SUCH I RREGULARITIES HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF T HE EXCISE DEPARTMENT. A COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE LETTER ISSUED BY THE EVASION WING OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT WAS F ORWARDED TO THIS OFFICE ON 22.12.2009 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CI T CENTRAL-II AHMEDABAD THROUGH THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BAR ODA, WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT, THE DIRECTORATE G ENERAL OF CENTRAL EXCISE INTELLIGENCE, AHMEDABAD ZONAL UNIT [HEREIN A FTER REFERRED TO AS DGCEI FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY] COLLECTED AN I NTELLIGENCE, ITA NO.156/RJT/2013 (SUNHILL CERAMIC VS. ACIT, RAJK OT)-8 APPEALS 4 INDICATING THAT THE MANUFACTURERS OF CERAMIC GLAZED AND VITRIFIED TILES OF MORBI AND OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE OF GUJA RAT, ARE ENGAGED IN LARGE SCALE EVASION OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY BY AD OPTING MODUS OPERANDI LIKE REMOVING FINISHED GOODS FROM THEIR RE GISTERED FACTORY PREMISES BY NOT DECLARING THE ACTUAL MRP OF THEIR PRODUCTS IN THE CENTRAL EXCISE INVOICE, MIS-DECLARING IN THE CENTRAL EXCISE INVOICES THE ACTUAL EX-FACTORY PRICES OF SUCH TILES , WHICH IS RECOVERABLE FROM THEIR BUYERS, SALE OF TILES IN THE MARKET AT PRICES WHICH VARY ACCORDING TO THE QUALITY AND GRADE AND T HAT THE INVOICES ARE PREPARED FOR THIRD QUALITY, WHEREAS, S UPPLY IS MADE OF FIRST QUALITY, THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL VALUE, OVER AN D ABOVE THE VALUE DECLARED IN THE CENTRAL EXCISE INVOICES, WAS COLLEC TED BY THEM IN CASH FROM THE BUYERS AND SUCH CASH AMOUNTS ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THEIR STATUTORY RECORDS, ETC. THUS, THE ALLE GATION IS THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED A FRAUDULENT METHOD TO KEEP TH E LANDED COST OF TILES AT THE BAREST MINIMUM AT THE DESTINAT ION SO THAT IT DOES NOT EXCEED THE ARTIFICIAL MRP DECLARED IN THE CENTRAL EXCISE INVOICES. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN ORDER TO TRANSFER SUCH C ASH AMOUNTS FROM DEALERS, DIFFERENT METHODS WERE ADOPTED BY THE M VIZ., IN CASE OF TRANSFER FROM WITHIN THE STATE OF GUJARAT, CASH AMOUNTS WERE MOSTLY TRANSFERRED THROUGH ANGADIAS AND WHERE TRANSFER IS FROM LOCATIONS OUTSIDE GUJARAT, CASH AMOUNTS WERE S OMETIMES COLLECTED PERSONALLY BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VES OR THEIR SALES PERSONNEL DURING THEIR VISIT TO THE DEALERS O R EVEN BY THE ANGADIAS. EVIDENCES OF SUCH TRANSFER OF CASH ALSO F ORMS PART OF THE EXHAUSTIVE SHOW CAUSE ISSUED BY THE CED. DISCRE ET VERIFICATION FROM THE BANKS REVEALED THAT, OVER RS 1000 CRORES WERE EXCHANGED HANDS AS UNACCOUNTED CASH AMOUNTS, I N THE AFORESAID MANNER, THROUGH A NUMBER OF SHROFFS SITUA TED IN MORBI, RAJKOT, HIMMATNAGAR AND AHMEDABAD. THEREFORE, THE D GCEI CONDUCTED A DETAILED INVESTIGATION IN THE MATTER AN D FACTORY PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COVERED UNDER SEARCH O N 17.1.2008 DURING WHICH SEVERAL INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE R ECOVERED, WHICH LEAD TO THE CONFIRMATION OF THE INTELLIGENCE. RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS AS LISTED IN THE ANNEXURES TO THE PANCHNA MAS DATED 17.1.2008 DRAWN AT THE FACTORY PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEE, WERE SEIZED BY THEM FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION. REPORT ON SUCH DETAILED INVESTIGATION IS CONTAINED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT. IN THE SAID REPORT, CORROBORATIV E EVIDENCES WERE ALSO GATHERED AND KEPT ON RECORD BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT. HENCE, THE SAID REPORT OF THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT IS FOOLPROOF AND THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF SUPPRESSI ON OF SALE. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT ALSO QUA NTIFIED THE EXTENT OF SUPPRESSED SALE. ITA NO.156/RJT/2013 (SUNHILL CERAMIC VS. ACIT, RAJK OT)-8 APPEALS 5 3. I HAVE, THEREFORE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE AS SESSEE'S INCOME TO THE ABOVE EXTENT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN T HE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE I T ACT AND THAT, SUCH ESCAPE MENT WAS BY REASON OF THE OMISSION AND FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE REOPENED. 5. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE REASONS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES UNSUCCESSFULLY. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 7. BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED BEFORE US THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY T HE ORDER OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 27-02-2015 IN THE CASE OF M/S.GANGOTRI GLAZED TILES VS. ACIT, IN ITA NOS.101, 102, 103 AND 104./RJT/2013 AND ITA NO.134, 135, 136 AND 137/RJT/2013 FOR THE ASSTT .YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AND 2007-08. 8. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.GAN GOTRI GLAZED TILES VS. ACIT (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RECORDED REASONS UNDER SECTION 148(2) OF THE ACT FOR ISSUANC E OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 11. WE FIND THAT IT IS AN ESTABLISHED POSITION OF L AW THAT WHEN VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 IS CHAL LENGED, THE VALIDITY OF THE SAME HAS TO BE JUDGED ON THE TOUCH STONE OF THE REASONS AS RECORDED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 148(2) OF THE ACT ALONE, AND NO OTHER MATERIAL CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONS IDERATION FOR JUDGING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE. 12. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO AN ESTABLISHED POSITION THA T THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 CAN BE ISSUED ONLY WHEN THE AO HA S FORMED A BONA FIDE BELIEF BASED ON THE REASONS HAVING BACKIN G OF THE MATERIAL, WHICH ARE SPECIFIC, DEFINITE, RELEVANT AN D RELIABLE. IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE AO TO HAVE MATERIAL IN HIS POSSE SSION, BUT HE ALSO MUST PERFORM FURTHER NECESSARY MENTAL ACT OF A CCEPTING ITA NO.156/RJT/2013 (SUNHILL CERAMIC VS. ACIT, RAJK OT)-8 APPEALS 6 MATERIAL AND INFORMATION AS RELIABLE, LEADING TO TH E FORMATION OF BELIEF WHICH CAN BE ACTED UPON. 13. FURTHER, THE BELIEF FORMED MUST BE OF ESCAPEMEN T OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT OF INCOME TAX, WHICH IS CHARGEABLE TO INCOME- TAX. 14. FURTHER, THE BELIEF MUST NOT BE A MERE PRETENCE , BUT THE BELIEF MUST BE REAL ABOUT ESCAPEMENT OF TAXABLE INC OME FROM INCOME TAX, BASED ON RELEVANT AND RELIABLE MATERIAL S. THE BELIEF ENTERTAINED BY THE AO MUST NOT BE ARBITRARY OR IRRA TIONAL. IT CAN BE EXAMINED WHETHER THE REASONS ARE RELEVANT AND HA VE A BEARING ON THE MATTER IN REGARD TO WHICH THE AO IS REQUIRED TO ENTERTAIN THE BELIEF BEFORE HE CAN ISSUE NOTICE UND ER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 15. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE ESTABLISHED POSITION OF LAW, IT IS TO BE ADJUDICATED THAT WHETHER THE REASONS AS RECOR DED IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS A VALID REASON FOR FORMING A BELIE F OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME TAX OF THE INCOME, WHICH IS OTHERWISE ASS ESSABLE TO INCOME-TAX. 16. WE FIND, ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE REASONS AS RECOR DED, THAT THE AO HAS FIRSTLY RECORDED THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BACKGROUND UNDER WHICH THE AO RECORDED THAT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL EXCISE INTELLIGENCE, AHMEDABAD ( DGCEI) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT THERE WAS A SUPPRES SION OF SALES FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF EXCISE DUTY, AND ACCORDI NGLY, ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, A COPY OF WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY HIM FROM CIT, CENTRAL-2, AHMEDABAD. THEREAFTER, THE AO RECORDED THE BACKGROUND UNDER WHICH THE DGCEI MADE INVESTIGATION AND SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BACKGROU ND UNDER WHICH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CAME TO BE ISSUED IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DGCEI. 17. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE REPORT CONTAINED IN TH E SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF EXCISE DEPARTMENT IS FOOLPROOF, AND THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES AND THE S AID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ALSO QUANTIFIED THE EXTENT OF SUPPRESSED SAL E. ACCORDING TO THE AO FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, HE BELIEVED THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF THE SALE FOUND BY THE EXCIS E DEPARTMENT TO HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED FOR LEVY OF EXCISE DUTY HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, AND SUCH ESCAP EMENT WAS FOR OMISSION AND FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS. HE, THEREF ORE, ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDE R CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.156/RJT/2013 (SUNHILL CERAMIC VS. ACIT, RAJK OT)-8 APPEALS 7 18. WE FIND THAT THE AO, IN THE ABOVE RECORDED REAS ONS, HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT IS FOOLPROOF AND SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL EV IDENCE OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES. 19. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ABOVE CONCLUSION OF THE AO IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FUTURA CERAMICS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT, SCA NO.6500 OF 2012 ORDER DATED 20.12.2012, WHEREIN, TH E HONBLE HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE UNDER VAT ACT O N A SIMILAR SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE AUTH ORITY HAS HELD AS UNDER: . MERELY BECAUSE THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT ISSUED A S HOW- CAUSE NOTICE, THAT CANNOT BE A GROUND TO PRESUME AN D CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS EVASION OF EXCISE DUTY IMPL YING THEREBY THAT THERE WAS ALSO EVASION OF TAX UNDER TH E VAT ACT. IT IS NOT EVEN THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT SUCH SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE PROCEEDINGS HAS CULMINATED INTO A NY FINAL ORDER AGAINST THE PETITIONER. WE WONDER WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT, IF ULTIMATELY THE EXC ISE DEPARTMENT WERE TO DROP THE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT LEV YING ANY DUTY OR PENALTY FROM THE PETITIONER. 20. FURTHER, THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT CONTAINS THE ALLEGATION OF THE EXCISE DE PARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED SALES FOR THE PURP OSE OF MAKING PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY. A PERUSAL OF RECORD ED REASONS DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE AO VERIFIED THE PART ICULARS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS INCOME-TAX RETURN. NOWHERE IN THE RECORDED REASONS, THE SALE DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE IN ITS INCOME-TAX RETURN, HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE AO, AS PER THE RECORDED REASONS, HAS NOT VERIFIED THE I NCOME-TAX RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS THE ALLEGED ESCAPE MENT OF INCOME TO ARRIVE AT THE SATISFACTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED SUCH INCOME IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME, AND HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ALLEGED SALES, O N WHICH THE EXCISE DUTY WAS ALLEGEDLY NOT PAID BY THE ASSES SEE, WAS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX, AND HAS ESCAPED TH E ASSESSMENT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. 21. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE INFORMATION CONTAINE D IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT CAN BE R EASON TO SUSPECT BY THE AO, BUT WITHOUT VERIFYING THE RELEVA NT PARTICULARS ITA NO.156/RJT/2013 (SUNHILL CERAMIC VS. ACIT, RAJK OT)-8 APPEALS 8 DECLARED IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN, IT CANNOT BE REA SON TO BELIEVE ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE IN COME TAX ACT. 22. IN VIEW OF THIS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE RE OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE ABOVE RECORDED REASONS, IS BAD IN LAW AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD ACCOR DINGLY, AND CONSEQUENTLY, CANCEL THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDE RS FOR ALL THE YEARS. 23. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DECISION IN RESPECT OF GRO UND NOS.2 AND 3 OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 INVOLVING JURISDICTION AL ISSUE, THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEALS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS/ACADEMIC IN NATURE. THEREFORE, THE OTH ER GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED SEPARATE LY BY US. 24. AS WE HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007 -08 ALL DATED 15.12.2011, WHILE DISPOSING OF APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOU S AND HENCE DISMISSED. 25. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007 -08 ARE ALLOWED, AND THAT OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE ABOVE RECORDED REASONS, IS BAD IN LAW AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD ACCORDINGLY, AND CO NSEQUENTLY, CANCEL THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR ALL THE YEARS. 10. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DECISION IN RESPECT OF GRO UND NOS.1 TO 4 OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 04-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 INVOLVING JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEALS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUC TUOUS/ACADEMIC IN NATURE. THEREFORE, THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEALS AR E NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED SEPARATELY BY US. ITA NO.156/RJT/2013 (SUNHILL CERAMIC VS. ACIT, RAJK OT)-8 APPEALS 9 11. AS WE HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 ALL DAT ED 15.12.2011, WHILE DISPOSING OF APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE APP EALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND HENCE DISMISSED . 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 ARE ALL OWED, AND THAT OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY THE 22 ND MAY, 2015 AT RAJKOT. SD/- SD/- ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 22/5/2015