The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda V. Amar Quarry Pvt.Ltd., Baroda

ITA 1930/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76898 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JHANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 142(1); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1930/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2004-05 DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BARODA. VS AMAR QUARRY PVT. LTD., C-22, ISHWAR SHANTI SOCIETY, KARELIBAUG, BARODA. PAN: AABCA 5871D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI J.P. JHANGID, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 26/06/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/06/2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-I, BARODA, DATED 29.03.2010. THE GRO UND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REPRODUCED BELOW: L. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN ANNULLING HOLDING THAT THE RE-OP ENED ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE AS VOID AB INITIO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT AS PER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS OR RE -ASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS E SCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH HAS COME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY. THE HON' BLE APEX COURT IN ITS DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI KRISHNA PVT. LTD. VS ITO, 221 ITR 538, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT ALTHOUGH THE AO COULD HAVE INVESTIG ATED THE TRUTY OF THE CLAIM IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR ITSELF, THAT DID NOT RE LIEVE THE ASSESSEE OF ITS OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. FURTHER, THE PLEA OF 'CHANGE OF OPINION' WAS RAISED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF IT ACT DATED 15.12. 2008 WERE THAT RETURN ITA NO.1930/AHD/2010 DCIT, CIR-1(1), BARODA VS. AMAR QUARRY PVT. LTD. A.Y.2004-05. - 2 OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 01.11.2004 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.10,53,050/-. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE FIRST ROUND WAS MADE U/S.143( 3) AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.15,49,724/-. SUBSEQUENT LY, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT TO SUB-CONTRACT ORS OF RS.1,03,71,416/-. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS PROPOSED TO R EOPEN THE SAID ASSESSMENT. 3. BEFORE US REASON RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE A SSESSMENT DATED 05.11.2007 IS FURNISHED, REPRODUCED BELOW: FROM THE RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED SUBCONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.2,79,82,553/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD DIVERTED ABOU T 1 CRORE TOWARDS SUB- CONTRACT WORK. IN ROAD CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS, VERY OFTEN SUB-CONTRACTORS ARE USED AS FRONT MEN TO REDUCE THE INCOME AS THE WORK WAS ENTRUSTED TO THEM WAS ALSO NORMALLY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH PAYMENTS REVERT BACK TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE IDEN TITY OF THE SUBCONTRACTORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE WORK REQUIRES EXAMINATIO N AND THEREBY INCOME TO THAT EXTENT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. ISSUE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT . 3.1 ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AND FI NALIZED AFTER DISCUSSION AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AN AMO UNT OF RS.1,17,21,020/- UNDER THE SAID HEAD WAS DISALLOWED . THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BEFORE L EARNED CIT(A) AND THAT LEGAL PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY LEA RNED CIT(A) IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ID. A. R. AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WAS CALLED FOR AND EXAMINED. I FIND FROM THE CASE RECORDS THAT THE ENTIRE DETAILS RELATING TO SUB-CON TRACT EXPENSES OF RS. 1,03,71,416/- HAD BEEN FILED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINA L ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT SHOWING DETAILS OF PARTY , DATE OF PAYMENT, AMOUNT, ETC. WERE ALL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONCE THIS ISSUE RELATING TO ITA NO.1930/AHD/2010 DCIT, CIR-1(1), BARODA VS. AMAR QUARRY PVT. LTD. A.Y.2004-05. - 3 THE GENUINENESS OR OTHERWISE OF SUB-CONTRACT EXPENS ES HAD BEEN LOOKED INTO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND THERE WAS DUE APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE A.O., IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN FOR THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO RE OPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR INQUIRING INTO THE SAME MATTER ONCE AGAIN. 5.1 FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS I FIND THAT STARTING POINT FOR THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT APPEARS TO BE A REMARK MADE BY THE ID. CIT - I WHILE CONDUCTING REVIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT THAT THE SUB-CONTRACT PAYMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SCRUTINIZED FURTHER DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN MY OPINION, THIS WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO 'REASON TO BEL IEVE' THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HAD THE RETURN BEEN ACCEPTED U/ S 143(1), IT WAS POSSIBLE TO ARGUE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, SINCE THE A.O DID NOT HAVE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY HIS MIND TO THE ISSUE OR SCRUT INIZE THE DETAILS. HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPL ETED U/S 143 (3). DETAILS OF SUB-CONTRACT EXPENSES WERE CALLED FOR THROUGH NOTIC E U/S 142(1) DATED 10.11.2006, SEEKING DETAILS OF SUB-CONTRACT EXPENSE S (POINT NO.15 OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE). THE DETAILS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE VID E LETTER DATED 17.11.2006. 5.2 THE ISSUE RELATING TO REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT H AS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURTS IN VARIOUS CASES. THE JUDICIAL VIEW IS UNANI MOUS THAT A CHANGE OF OPINION WITHOUT BRINGING OUT ANY NEW FACT RELEVANT TO THE FORMING OF THE OPINION WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE GOOD GROUNDS FOR REOPE NING THE ASSESSMENT. IN GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD. VS. DCIT, 22 ITR 68, THE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT 'THE A.O. CANNOT TAKE ANY ACTION UNDER THIS SE CTION (147) MERELY BECAUSE HE HAPPENS TO CHANGE HIS OPINION OR TO HOLD AN OPIN ION DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF HIS PREDECESSOR ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS'. THE SUPR EME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED ONLY BECAUSE OF CHANG E OF OPINION (CIT VS. BHANJI LAVJI, 79 ITR 582). THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE IT AT HAS FURTHER ELABORATED AND STATED THAT SECTION 147 DOES NOT AUT HORIZE THE A.O. TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE GARB OF 'REASON TO BELIEVE ' IN ORDER TO REVIEW HIS OWN DECISION (CIT VS. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER B RANDS LTD., 126 TAXMAN 104). 5.3 HAVING REGARD TO THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON R ECORD AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED. ALL THE ACTIONS TAKEN CONSEQUENT TO SUCH REOPENING CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE REASSESSMENT IS HELD TO BE VOID AB I NITIO. THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2008 IS ANNULLED. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED SR.D.R., M R. J.P. JHANGID APPEARED AND ARGUED THAT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF TH E FIRST ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3), ORDER DATED 28.12.2006 THE CASE WAS REO PENED ON 05.11.2007. THEREFORE, THE REOPENING WAS DONE WITHIN A YEAR. TH IS IS NOT A CASE WHERE ITA NO.1930/AHD/2010 DCIT, CIR-1(1), BARODA VS. AMAR QUARRY PVT. LTD. A.Y.2004-05. - 4 THE REOPENING WAS MADE AFTER THE LAPSE OF FOUR YEAR S. SINCE, THE REOPENING WAS DONE WITHIN ONE YEAR; THEREFORE, THE AO HAD WIDE POWERS TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. LEARNED CIT(A) WENT WRONG TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 147 OF IT ACT. HE HAS FU RTHER PLEADED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT NO OPINION WAS FORMED BY TH E AO IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS PAYMENT TO SUB-CONTRACTOR; HENCE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF FORMING OF AN OPINION AT THAT TIME. SO, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF CHANGE OF OPINION. UNDER THE MAIN PROVISION OF S ECTION 147, IF AO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY THEN EMPOWER TO RE -COMPUTE THE INCOME BY ISSUING THE NOTICE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER TH E ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IN ROAD CON STRUCTION BUSINESS THE SUB-CONTRACTORS ARE USED WHICH ARE NOT THE GENUINE PARTIES. IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT FURNISHED THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE SUB-CONTRACTORS AND NO INQU IRY WAS MADE DUE TO WHICH THE SAID INCOME HAD ESCAPED FROM ASSESSMENT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE REOPENING WAS JUSTIFIABLE AS PER LAW; HENCE, TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD BE REVERSED. 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE, LEARNE D AR, MR. S.N. SOPARKAR APPEARED AND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHATEVER INQUIRIES WERE RAISED IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WERE DULY COMPLIED WITH AND THEN AFTER CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE THE AO HA D FORMED AN OPINION NOT TO TAX THE SAME. LEARNED AR HAS DRAWN OUR ATTEN TION ON THE RETURN FILED ALONG WITH ANNUAL ACCOUNTS. HE HAS INFORMED T HAT AS PER THE TRADING ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ROAD WORK RECE IPTS OF ITA NO.1930/AHD/2010 DCIT, CIR-1(1), BARODA VS. AMAR QUARRY PVT. LTD. A.Y.2004-05. - 5 RS.2,79,82,553/- AND THE WORK EXPENSES CLAIM OF R S.1,64,28,575/- ALONG WITH THE RETURN AND THE ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED A LIST OF THE EXPENDITURE AS SCHEDULE-(I) WHEREIN THE DETAILS OF WORK EXPENSES CONTAINED AN EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD SUB-CONTRACT EXPENSES OF RS.1,03,71,416/-. LEARNED AR HAS FURTH ER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON A LETTER WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THE AO DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS DATED 10.11.2006. AS PER THE SAID QUESTIONNAIRE AT SERIAL NO.15 THE AO HAD ASKED FOR THE DETAILS OF SUB- CONTRACTORS ALONG WITH PAYMENT DETAILS. IN COMPLIAN CE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 17.11.2006 AND VID E ITEM NO.15 THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A COPY OF THE SUB-CONTRACTOR EXPENSES FOR THE PERUSAL OF THE AO. AFTER PERUSING ALL THOSE DETAILS , THE AO HAD FORMED AN OPINION NOT TO DISALLOW THE EXPENDITURE AND THE ASS ESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ACCORDINGLY. HE HAS FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE FACT OF FURNISHING OF REPLY BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 17.11.2006 WAS ALSO DULY NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH 5.1. IF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAD ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE CORRECTNESS O F THE FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(A) THEN COULD HAVE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT CONTRADIC TING THE SAID FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(A). FOR THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION, LEAR NED AR HAS QUOTED RULE 10 OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 5.1 HIS NEXT PLANK OF ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE REOPENI NG WAS DONE WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING THE NATURE OF ESCAP EMENT OF INCOME. THE REASON RECORDED FOR REOPENING WAS FOR FURTHER EXAMI NATION OF THE CASE; WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. HE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT UNDER THE LAW EVEN WHEN A REOPEN ING WAS DONE WITHIN ONE YEAR, THE AO IS NOT EMPOWERED TO CHANGE AN OPIN ION WHICH HAS ITA NO.1930/AHD/2010 DCIT, CIR-1(1), BARODA VS. AMAR QUARRY PVT. LTD. A.Y.2004-05. - 6 ALREADY BEEN FORMED DURING THE PASSING OF THE ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE CASE LAWS AS LISTED BELO W: 1. ASHWAMEGH CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS. DCIT AND ANOTHER, (2013) 353 ITR 413 (GUJ.) 2. ARVIND POLYCOT LTD. VS. CHANDRA RAM, (2013) 353 ITR 511 (GUJ.) 3. VODAFONE WEST LTD. VS. ACIT (NO.3), (2013 354 IT R 572 (GUJ.) 4. GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LTD. VS. ACIT, (2013) 350 ITR 266 (GUJ.) 5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS (1)KELVINATOR OF I NDIA LTD., (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT RECORD FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US. THERE WA S AN ORDER-SHEET WHICH HAD MENTIONED THAT THE SAID REPLY DATED 17.11 .2006 WAS KEPT IN A SEPARATE RECORD. THEREFORE, THE FINDING ON FACTS AB OUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 17.11.2006 AS RECORDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. THIS REPLY WAS IN COMPLIANCE OF A QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 10.11.2006 ISSUED BY THE AO, WHEREIN ONE OF T HE QUERY WAS IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT MADE TO SUB-CONTRACTORS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF THE SUB-CONTRACTOR EXPENSE S. EVEN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF WORK EXPENSES WHICH HAD INCLUDED THE PAYMENT MADE TO SUB-CONTRACTORS. T HEREFORE, UPTO THIS EXTENT FACTS HAVE REVEALED THAT THE PRELIMINARY INF ORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE SUB-CONTRACTOR EXPENSES WERE VERY MUCH ON REC ORD FURNISHED ALONG WITH INCOME TAX RETURN FILED. IT APPEARS THAT ON SC RUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS, AO HAD ISSUED THE SAID QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 10.11.20 06 AND INQUIRED ABOUT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO SUB-CONTRACTORS. THAT NO TICE WAS COMPLIED WITH AND A LIST WAS FURNISHED. AT THIS POINT OF TIM E, DURING THE ARGUMENT, LEARNED DR HAS CONTESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEFA ULTED IN NOT FURNISHING THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE SUB-CONTR ACTORS AND THE AO ITA NO.1930/AHD/2010 DCIT, CIR-1(1), BARODA VS. AMAR QUARRY PVT. LTD. A.Y.2004-05. - 7 WAS PREVENTED TO KNOW THE CORRECT FACTS. ACCORDING TO LEARNED DR, IT WAS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE NO T TO DISCLOSE THE FULL FACTS. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SA ID ARGUMENT OF LEARNED DR. AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE BASIC INFORMATION WAS VERY MUCH AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. THE ONUS WAS ON THE AO TO FU RTHER INVESTIGATE. NOW DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WE CANNOT JUDGE THAT HOW ALL ACCOUNTS AND RELATED EVIDENCES WERE EXAMINE D BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ONLY THING WE CAN J UDGE IS THAT THE BASIC INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE HIM AND ON THE SCRUTINY OF THE SAME THE AO HAD NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE. THEREFOR E, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WE CAN SAY THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF FORMING AN OPINION ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. FOR THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE AO IS NOT ENTITLED TO CHANGE THE OPINION EVEN AFTER THE REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE WITHIN FOUR YEARS, FEW CASE LAWS HAVE BEEN CITED, AS LISTED ABOVE. THIS ISSUE IS COV ERED BY AN ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LTD., 350 ITR 266 (GUJARAT) . 6.1 IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, AN IMPORTANT FEATURE FOR REOPENING HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY US THAT THE REASONS RECORDED WER E VAGUE RATHER PRESUMPTIVE. IT WAS A PRESUMPTION, VERY OFTEN SUB- CONTRACTORS ARE USED AS FRONT MEN TO REDUCE THE INCOME AS THE WORK WAS E NTRUSTED TO THEM WAS ALSO NORMALLY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH PAYMENTS REVERT BACK TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN POSSESSI ON OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT WAS INVOLVED IN SUCH PRACTICE. AFT ER HAVING THAT PRESUMPTION, NEXT, THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED THE EXA CT ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BUT WANTED TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF PAY MENT. THE AO HAD ITA NO.1930/AHD/2010 DCIT, CIR-1(1), BARODA VS. AMAR QUARRY PVT. LTD. A.Y.2004-05. - 8 REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY OF SU B-CONTRACTORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE WORK, EXAMINATION IS REQUIRED. I T WAS NOT THE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BUT H E HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN EXAMINATION IS REQUIRED. THERE SHOU LD BE A DEFINITE REASON SO AS TO FORM A BELIEF THAT SOME INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THEN ONLY REOPENING IS PERMISSIBLE. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD, AFTER PERUSING THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING, THAT THE SAME WAS P RESUMPTIVE IN NATURE AND PROCEEDED MERELY TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE CAS E ON THE POINT ON WHICH AN INQUIRY HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED BY THE AO DU RING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. SUCH AN ACTION OF REOPEN ING CANNOT BE APPROVED, HENCE, WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE FINDING OF L EARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/06/2014 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD