Mantri Housing and Construction Ltd., Pune V. JCIT Spl.2, Pune, Pune

ITA 202/PUN/2002

• Counselvise Citation: 20224514 RSA 2002
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2002
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH
• Keywords: Gift; Depreciation; Search and seizure; Wrong claim; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA.NO.202/PN/2002 (ASSTT. YEAR : 1995-96) M/S.MANTRI HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS M/S.GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGIES LTD.), MANTRI HOUSE, 929, F.C.ROAD, PUNE 411004. .. APPELLANT VS. JCIT, SPL.RANGE-2, PUNE. .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K.KULKARNI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K.SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 12.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.05.2013 ORDER PER R.S.PADVEKAR, JM : IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMP UGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, PUNE, DATED 08.11.2001 FOR THE A.Y. 1995-96. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CONCISED GROUNDS WHICH A RE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THIS BEING A CASE OF REOPENING, THE AP PELLANT COULD NOT PRESS FOR A FRESH CLAIM IN ITS FAVOUR IN THIS ASST. WHICH WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ORIGINAL AS ST. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF ANY AUTHORITY TO MAKE A CORRECT ASST. AND IN THAT P ROCESS, IF ANY RELIEF IS ALLOWABLE TO THE APPELLANT FROM ITS T OTAL INCOME, THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN REASST. AS W ELL MAY BE WITH THE ONLY CONDITION THAT THE TOTAL INCOME IN RE ASST. COULD NOT BE ASSESSED AT A LOWER FIGURE THAN THE ORIGINAL ASST. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.3,47,28,793/- AND RS.1,36,71,33 2/- 2 DISREGARDING THE CLAIMS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THESE PROFITS WERE NOT REALISED NOR DID THEY ACCRUE TO THE APPELLANT A ND HENCE, THE SAME HAD TO BE DELETED FROM THE APPELLANTS TOT AL INCOME FOR THIS YEAR. 3A THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE ABOVE PROFITS DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE IN COME OF THE APPELLANT AS THEY WERE DISPUTED OR NOT REALIZED AND NOT ACCRUED TO THE APPELLANT AS PER THE VARIOUS CASE LA WS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AND HENCE, JUST BECAUSE THE A PPELLANT HAD INCLUDED THE SAME WRONGLY IN ITS TOTAL INCOME, ASSESSING SUCH PROFITS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT T HE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS COURTS IN THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT APPLIED SQUARELY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AS PER THESE CASE LAWS THESE PROFITS WERE WRONGLY TAXE D IN APPELLANT HANDS AND THEREFORE, THEY WERE TO BE DELE TED FROM THE APPELLANTS HANDS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF THE ALLEGED PROFIT OF RS.1,36,71,332/- IN THIS YEAR, PARTICULARLY, WHEN T HIS PROFIT WAS ALREADY TAXED FOR A.Y. 1996-97 AND THUS, THE DE CISION OF THE CIT(A) HAS RESULTED IN DOUBLE TAXATION OF THIS AMOUNT ONCE IN A.Y. 1996-97 AND SECOND TIME IN THIS YEAR. 5A ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAI LED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ABOVE PROFITS OF RS.1,36,71,332 /- DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THIS YEA R. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ENTERTAINMENT EXPENDITURE. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,225/- ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS. 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PREVIOUS YEAR EXPENSES O F RS.3,89,944/-. 9. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED A.O. ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S.234B AND ALSO ERRED IN WITHDRAWING INT EREST U/S.244A WHEN THERE WAS NO ORDER PASSED TO THAT EFF ECT BY HIM AND THEREFORE, AS PER THE DECISION OF S.C. IN T HE CASE OF RANCHI CLUB 247 ITR 209, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE INTEREST IS NOT CHARGEABLE AND THE DEMAND ON ACCOUN T OF INTEREST BE WITHDRAWN. 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT AS PE R THE INSTRUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE HE IS NOT PRESSING GROU NDS NO.3, 4, 5 AND 6 AND THE ONLY GROUNDS TO BE DECIDED ARE GROUND S NO.1 AND 2. WE ACCORDINGLY TAKE UP GROUNDS NO.1 AND 2 FOR ADJUD ICATION. 3 3. THE FACTS WHICH ARE REVEALED FROM THE RECORD ARE AS UNDER. ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF REAL ESTATE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUE D NOTICE U/S.148 ON 16.03.1999 AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, A SSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS.4,1 2,36,410/-. AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL R ETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.139, THE LOSS WAS DECLARED AT RS.1,51, 89,765/-. WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U /S.148, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED UNREALISED PROFIT TO THE EXTEN T OF RS.2,60,46,645/- WRITTEN BACK IN RESPECT OF MANTRI EAST PROJECT. THE REASON FOR ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S.148 WAS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION @ 100% ON LEASE OF CIN EMATOGRAPHIC FILM FROM M/S.G.V.FILMS WHICH WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHICH WAS CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 1995-96 ON 29.11.1995 AND CLAIM ED THE DEPRECIATION ON FILM ROLLS UNDER HEAD PLANT AND MA CHINERY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,75,59,550/-. THE ASSESSEES REGULAR ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 11.11.1997. IN THE SAID ORDER AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ONLY P OINT OF VERIFICATION OF UNREALISED PROFIT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3). AS THE SAID ISSUE IS NOT BEFORE US, HE NCE, WE PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE FACT RELEVANT TO THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 3,47,28,793/- AND RS.1,36,71,332/- BY HOLDING THAT IN THE REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS THE SETTLED CLAIMS CANNOT BE RE-AGITATE D. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT S OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SURVEY NO.390/857, EAST STREET, CA NTONMENT BOARD, PUNE-411001. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED AS PART OF STOCK-IN-TRADE FOR RS.6 CRORES VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 15.12.1994. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMEN T FOR JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY VIDE MEMORANDUM OF UNDE RSTANDING (MOU) DATED 30.03.1995 WITH MR.DEVIDAS BUDHRANI AND OTHERS AND AGREED TO SHARE THE PROFIT IN RESPECT OF MANTRI EAS T PROJECT IN THE 4 RATIO OF 25:75. FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OF DIST RIBUTABLE PROFIT, THE BASE VALUE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS WAS DETERMINED AT RS.9,50,00,000/-. THE GAIN/PROFIT OUT OF THE SAID TRANSACTION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE/TRANSFER OF RIGHTS WAS RS.3,47,29,7 93/-, WHICH WAS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEA R ENDED 31.03.1995 AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS OFFERED AS A PRO FIT FOR TAXATION IN THE A.Y. 1995-96 WHICH IS BEFORE US. THE ASSESS EE ALSO FILED THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE F.Y. 1995-96 RELATING TO THE A.Y. 1995-96 ALONGWITH THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, IN WHICH A S PER THE NOTES IT WAS STATED THAT RECEIPTS FROM REAL ESTATE OPERATIO NS CONSIST OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS BY THE COMPANY TO OT HERS INCLUDING PARTNERSHIP FIRM/JOINT VENTURE WHERE THE COMPANY IS ALSO THE PARTNER. THE RECEIPTS FROM THE REAL ESTATE OPERATI ON WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 1995- 96 AT RS.17,49,05,243/- WHICH INCLUDED THE GAIN ARISING F ROM AFORESAID TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF RS.3,47,28,793/-. IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY BY THE JOINT VENTURE AND THE P ARTNERS OF THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON THE NOTICE OF TERMINA TION OF JOINT VENTURE AND HAVE TERMINATED THE AGREEMENT TO DEVELO P THE PROJECT JOINTLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD. 198 ITR 297 AND HELD THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT FOR THE BENEFI T OF THE ASSESSEE BUT TO BRING TO TAX THE ESCAPED INCOME AND THERE CA NNOT BE THE REVISION OR REVIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WH ICH HAS REACHED THE FINALITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, RE JECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.3,47,28,793/- AS NON TAXABLE. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCO UNT OF PROVISION FOR UNREALISED PROFIT OF RS.1,36,71,332/- IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO THE PARTNERSHIP F IRM/JOINT VENTURE. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT HAS ACCOUNTED THE TRANS ACTION ON INTRODUCTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS INTO PARTNER SHIP FIRM/JOINT VENTURE AS SALE ON THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT AND M ADE THE 5 PROVISION FOR UNREALISED PROFIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS .1,36,71,332/- BEING THE ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE PROFITS OF THE PA RTNERSHIP FIRM/JOINT VENTURE. ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE WORKIN G OF THE SAME WHICH IS GIVEN ON PAGE NO.8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. AS PER THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF PROFIT WAS MADE AS IT WAS ALREADY OFFERED FOR TAXATION ON TRANSFER OF PROPERT Y TO JOINT VENTURE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF THE SAID PROJECT BEING DEVELOPED IN JOINT VENTURE, AS SUCH NO REAL PROFIT HAS ARISEN ON ITS APPROVAL. IT WAS REQUESTED TO DELETE THE PROFIT OF RS.3,47,28,793/- WHICH WAS OFF ERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND WHICH WAS ALSO PART OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S.143(3). MATTER WAS CARR IED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS. THE LD. CIT(A) PLA CED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUN ENGINEERING WORKS P. LTD. (SUPRA) AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE DIF FERENT COMPILATIONS BY WAY OF PAPER BOOKS WHICH HAVE BEEN ANXIOUSLY PERUSED. THE SHORT ISSUE WHICH AROSE FOR OUR CONSI DERATION IS WHETHER AS HELD BY LD. CIT(A) CAN ASSESSEE RE-AGITA TE THE CLAIM WHICH HAS REACHED THE FINALITY IN REGULAR ASSESSMEN T, BY TAKING SHELTER OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE T O NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RE JECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,47,28 ,793/- WAS ALREADY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RET URN FILED U/S.139 AND WHICH WAS ALSO PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME WHICH W AS ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT BY WAY OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT. WE FIND THAT SO FAR AS THE REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.147 ARE CONCERNED, THOSE ARE IN RESPE CT OF THE BOGUS CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION ON THE LEASED CINEMATOGRA PHIC FILMS AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROFITS OF THE JOINT VEN TURE OR REAL ESTATE INCOME THEREOF. 6 7. IN THE CASE OF SUN ENGINEERING WORKS P. LTD. (SU PRA), THE LAW HAS MADE IT VERY CLEAR BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THEIR LORDSHIPS ARE AS UND ER: THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT IN V JAGANMOH AN RAO'S CASE, THEREFORE, IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT ONCE AN ASSESSMENT IS VALIDLY REOPENED BY ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 22(2) OF THE 1922 ACT (CORRESPONDING TO SECTION 148 OF THE A CT), THE PREVIOUS UNDERASSESSMENT IS SET ASIDE AND THE INCOM E TAX OFFICER HAS THE JURISDICTION AND DUTY TO LEVY TAX O N THE ENTIRE INCOME THAT HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT DURING THE PREVI OUS YEAR. WHAT IS SET ASIDE IS, THUS, ONLY THE PREVIOUS UNDER ASSESSMENT AND NOT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AN ORD ER MADE IN RELATION TO THE ESCAPED TURNOVER DOES NOT AFFECT TH E OPERATIVE FORCE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, PARTICULARLY IF I T HAS ACQUIRED FINALITY, AND THE ORIGINAL ORDER RETAINS BOTH ITS C HARACTER AND IDENTITY. IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF 'UNDERASSESSMENT' BASED ON CLAUSES (A) TO (D) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 147, THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF TAX DUE HAS TO BE RECOMPUTED ON THE E NTIRE TAXABLE INCOME. THE JUDGMENT IN V. JAGANMOHAN RAO'S CASE, [1970] 75 ITR 373 (SC), THEREFORE, CANNOT BE READ T O IMPLY AS LAYING DOWN THAT, IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS V ALIDLY INITIATED, THE ASSESSEE CAN SEEK REOPENING OF THE W HOLE ASSESSMENT AND CLAIM CREDIT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS FIN ALLY CONCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM RECOMPUTATION OF THE INCOME OR REDOING OF AN ASSESSMENT AND BE ALLOWED A CLAIM WHICH HE EITHER FAILED TO MA KE OR WHICH WAS OTHERWISE REJECTED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSE SSMENT WHICH HAS SINCE ACQUIRED FINALITY. OF COURSE, IN THE REAS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT IS OPEN TO AN ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME ALLEGED TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT HAS IN TRUTH AND IN FACT NOT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BUT THAT THE SAME HAD BEEN SHOWN UNDER SOME INAPPROPRIATE HEAD IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, BUT TO READ THE JUDGMENT IN V. JAGANMOHAN RAO'S CASE [1970] 75 ITR 373 (SC), AS LAYING DOWN THAT REASSESSMENT WIPES OUT THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT AND THAT REASSESSMENT IS NOT ONLY CONFIN ED TO ' ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ' OR ' UNDERASSESSMENT ' BUT TO THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR AND STARTS THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS DE NOVO GIVING THE RIGHT TO AN ASSESSEE TO REAGITAT E MATTERS WHICH HE HAD LOST DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, WHICH HAD ACQUIRED FINALITY, IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO AGAINST THE PHRASEOLOGY OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT A ND THE OBJECT OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WOULD BE READING THAT JUDGMENT TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT IN WHI CH THE QUESTIONS AROSE FOR DECISION IN THAT CASE. IT IS NE ITHER DESIRABLE NOR PERMISSIBLE TO PICK OUT A WORD OR A SENTENCE FR OM THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT, DIVORCED FROM THE CONTEXT O F THE QUESTION UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TREAT IT TO BE THE COMPLETE 'LAW' DECLARED BY THIS COURT. THE JUDGMENT MUST BE READ A S A WHOLE 7 AND THE OBSERVATIONS FROM THE JUDGMENT HAVE TO BE C ONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE QUESTIONS WHICH WERE BEFORE THI S COURT. A DECISION OF THIS COURT TAKES ITS COLOUR FROM THE QU ESTIONS INVOLVED IN THE CASE IN WHICH IT IS RENDERED AND, WHILE APPL YING THE DECISION TO A LATER CASE, THE COURTS MUST CAREFULLY TRY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE DECIS ION OF THIS COURT AND NOT TO PICK OUT WORDS OR SENTENCES FROM T HE JUDGMENT, DIVORCED FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTIONS UNDER CO NSIDERATION BY THIS COURT, TO SUPPORT THEIR REASONINGS. IN MADH AV RAO JIVAJI RAO SCINDIA BAHADUR V. UNION OF INDIA [1971] 3 SCR 9; AIR 1971 SC 530, THIS COURT CAUTIONED (AT PAGE 578 OF A IR 1971 SC) 'IT IS NOT PROPER TO REGARD A WORD, A CLAUSE OR A SENTENCE OCCURRING IN A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT, DIVOR CED FROM ITS CONTEXT, AS CONTAINING A FULL EXPOSITION OF THE LAW ON A QUESTION WHEN THE QUESTION DID NOT EVEN FALL TO BE ANSWERED IN THAT JUDGMENT.' ALTHOUGH SECTION 147 IS PART OF A TAXING STATUTE, IT IMPOSES NO CHARGE ON THE SUBJECT BUT DEALS MERELY WITH THE MACHINERY OF ASSESSMENT AND IN INTERPRETING A PROVISION OF THAT KIND, THE RULE IS THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE PREFERRED WHICH MAKES THE MACHINERY WORKABLE. SINCE THE PROCEEDINGS TINDER SE CTION 147 OF THE ACT ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REVENUE AND N OT AN ASSESSEE AND ARE AIMED AT GARNERING THE ' ESCAPED I NCOME ' OF AN ASSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CONVE RTED AS 'REVISIONAL' OR 'REVIEW' PROCEEDINGS AT THE INSTANC E OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREBY MAKING THE MACHINERY UNWORKABLE. 8. HENCE IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT ONCE THE ISSUE HAS R EACHED FINALITY IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE SH ELTER OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO RE-AGITATE THE SETTLED ISSUES WHICH IS OTHERWISE NOT THE PART OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MISCONCEIVED AND MISINTERPRETED TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147. WHATEVER THE ARGUMENT WAS CANVASSED B EFORE US WAS TREATING THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE IN THE N ATURE OF REVIEW PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WE ARE AFRAID, SUCH ARGUMENT CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED. AS ADMITTEDLY, THE REASON GIVEN FOR REOP ENING U/S.148 TO BRING TO TAX THE ESCAPED INCOME AND NOT TO SIT ON T HE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT TO RECONSIDER WHETHER THE ASSESSEE EARNE D THE INCOME OR NOT WHICH HE HAS ALREADY OFFERED AND ASSESSMENT HAS REACHED THE FINALITY. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND NO.1 AND 2 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE DISMISSED . 8 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED OTHER GROUNDS AND H ENCE OTHER GROUNDS ARE ALSO DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF MAY, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( R.K.PANDA ) ( R.S.PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER GSPS PUNE, DATED THE 10 TH MAY, 2013 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (ERSTWHILE JCIT, SPL.RANGE-2, PUNE). 3. THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR B BENCH, PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE.