ACIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1) , CHENNAI V. P.Janakiraman, CHENNAI

ITA 2079/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1800 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business income; Retrospective amendment; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 80HHC; 40(a)(ia); 143(1)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी वी दुगाŊ राव Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2079/Chny/2017 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. Vs. Shri P. Janakiraman, New No. 2, Old No. 3, R-Block, Plot No. 3822, 6 th Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. [PAN:AAJPJ1327J] (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Sajit Kumar, JCIT ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 24.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, dated 23.06.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 quashing the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 2 30.09.2009. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the return of income filed. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment and concluded the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 30.03.2013 by assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹.1,40,79,997/-. Thereafter, again the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment and re-concluded the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 30.03.2016 by determining the total income of the assessee at ₹.6,24,45,621/-. 3. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings twice passed in this case. After considering the submissions of the assessee and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), the ld. CIT(A) has held that the reassessment proceedings to be bad in law and accordingly the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2016. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 3 In this case, the return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the return of income filed. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment and concluded the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 30.03.2013 by assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹.1,40,79,997/-. Thereafter, again the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment and re-concluded the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 30.03.2016 by determining the total income of the assessee at ₹.6,24,45,621/-. 6. The first reopening of assessment was initiated by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 14.02.2012 for the reason that the assessee has not deducted tax on the expenses to the extent of ₹.42,75,456/-, such as, professional charges, interest others, interest on machinery finance charges, advertisement charges paid and remuneration to name lenders debited in the profit and loss account, which are required to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2013 by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.1,40,79,997/- after making various disallowances to the extent of I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 4 ₹.31,09,985/-. During the course of reassessment proceedings, before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has submitted the following: “9. The submissions made were examined and the evidences filed in support of a's claim verified. It is seen from the records, the assessee is regularly admitting agricultural income in his return of income. Perusal of the details filed, it is noticed that the assessee has sold lands to the extent of 47.06 acres out of the purchase of 51.65 acres. The lands are situated in Kizhamur Village, Navalur Village and Kanchivakkam village and realized net profit of Rs. 4,83,65,624/- on these transactions. In respect of the sold lands, the assessee has produced copies of purchase deed and also filed copies of sale deed. On examination of the purchase deeds and sale deeds. It is seen that the lands are classified as Nanjai and Punjai lands in these documents. The VAO has also given certificate that these lands are meant for agricultural purpose and the location of these lands are beyond five kilo meters from Municipalities. More over the population in these villages are less than 1000. The assessee has admitted income of Rs.73,25,808/- on sale of 29.36 acres of land in his real estate business. It establishes that wherever lands are converted into house sites, the income realized is admitted as his business income or his capital gains as the case may be. Other lands are sold as such and the reason for this is due to personal reasons which made him and his family members to sell as such and such income derived arc admitted as profit on sale of agricultural lands. From the statement of income of the assessee it is also seen that the assessee has admitted income from both agricultural and non agricultural land in his return of income claiming the profit on sale of agricultural lands as exempt and profit on sale of non agricultural as either his business income or under capital gain.” 7. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has observed and held as under: “10. From the evidences filed and perusal of the records, documents produced/filed, it is clearly seen that the lands were purchased as agricultural land (Nanjai and Punjai) as per the sale deed and purchase deed and also as per the revenue records, the lands sold were found to be agricultural lands. Moreover, the fact, the land in question is found to be situated beyond the stipulated distance (as per sec 2(14)(iii)(6) of the Income tax Act from the Municipal limits and also as per the certificates issued by the VAOs. It is also to be seen that the lands in question haven classified as Investments in the assets side of Balance Sheet. In view of the above, after verifying the details filed, and perusal of details on records, I am on the opinion that the lands sold cannot be treated as Stock in Trade but as I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 5 investment only and consequently the profit earned out of this sale of lands gets exempted.” 8. Thereafter, by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 11.03.2015, the Assessing Officer again [second time] reopened the assessment on the ground that the profit admitted by the assessee on the sale of agricultural lands to the tune of ₹.4,83,65,624/- was not an agricultural land and the profit on sale of land of ₹.4.83 crores earned by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 is to be brought to tax and concluded the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2016 by treating the above profit on sale of lands of ₹.4.83 crores as business income. 9. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that in the reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice under section 148 of the Act dated 11.03.2015, the Assessing Officer has not established what was the default on the part of the assessee to face the reassessment proceedings. It was further observed the ld. CIT(A) that as the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act was being served after the expiry of four years, it was incumbent on the part of the Assessing Officer to satisfy the stipulation of first proviso of section 147 of the Act. It was further observed that in his reassessment order dated I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 6 30.03.2016, the Assessing Officer has not established as to what material facts had been withheld/suppressed by the assessee. In the order, the Assessing Officer has taken a diametrical view without elaborating on the rationale of the same. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has held that on the same set of facts, a different view has been taken and it is clear change of opinion. After considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra), the ld. CIT(A) has held that the Assessing Officer has power to reassess but no power to review and by applying the ratio of the decision in the case CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) the salient findings of the ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under: 1. That the impugned issue of profit from sale of agricultural lands was elaborately discussed in the order dated 30.03.2013 and all the relevant evidences were examined following which a view was taken. 2. That the Assessing Officer has not established the specific failure on the part of the appellant as to what ‘material facts’ were suppressed. 3. That an opposite view on the issue of taxability of profit from the sale of agricultural land has been on the same set of facts and evidences. I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 7 4. That the view taken in the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 tantamounts to a ‘review’, and a change of opinion not valid as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) In view of the discussion as above, I hold the reassessment proceedings to be bad in law. 10. On perusal of the first reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2013, as reproduced hereinabove, the assessee has furnished detailed submissions towards realizing net profit on sale of lands. In para 10 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has elaborately discussed on the sale of the impugned agricultural lands, scrutinized the documents and evidences submitted by the assessee and arrived at the findings that the profits from the sale of land being agricultural in nature are exempt from tax. Thereafter, having different opinion on the sale of land is not an agricultural land, the Assessing Officer again reopened the assessment, which is mere change of opinion and not permissible as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra), wherein, it was held that an assessment cannot be reopened on a mere change of opinion; reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is one of the conditions precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 8 reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the Assessing Officer had power to re-assess but no power to review. If the concept of “change of opinion” is removed, review would take place in the garb of reopening of assessment. Thus, applying the ratio of the above judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the instant case, since no new material was brought on record after completion of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2013, the second reopening of assessment was not on account of any fresh material and it is only on a mere change of opinion, we are of the considered view that the reopening of assessment is liable to be quashed. 11. Moreover, the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act dated 11.03.2015 was being served after the expiry of four years, it was incumbent on the part of the Assessing Officer to satisfy the stipulation of first proviso of section 147 of the Act. While issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 11.03.2015, the Assessing Officer has not established as to what “material facts” had been suppressed by the assessee. Once the assessment was reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year under consideration, the provisions of section 147 of the Act applies. Once I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 9 the proviso to section 147 of the Act applies, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to prove that the assessee has failed to furnish fully and truly all material facts to complete the assessment. In this case the Assessing Officer was not able to establish that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials. We, therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, hold that the reopening is invalid beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 11.1 In this connection, in the case of Fenner (India) Ltd. v. DCIT 241 ITR 672 (Mad), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not establish even prima facie, a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the material fact for the assessment and accordingly quashed the notice. The head-notes of the above judgement are reproduced as under: Mere escape of income is insufficient to justify the initiation of action under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year. Such escapement must be by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee either to file a return referred to in the proviso or to truly and fully disclose the material facts necessary for the assessment. Unless the condition in the proviso to section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961, is satisfied, the Assessing Officer does not acquire jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding under section 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year. Thus, in cases where the initiation of the proceedings is beyond the period of four years from the end of the assessment year, the Assessing Officer must necessarily record not only his reasonable belief that I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 10 income has escaped assessment but also the default or failure committed by the assessee. Failure to do so would vitiate the notice and the entire proceedings. If the Assessing Officer chooses to entertain the belief that the assessment has been made in the background of the assessee's failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts, it is necessary for him to record that fact. A notice issued without recording such a fact cannot be regarded as a valid notice. If the details placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer were in conformity with the requirements of all applicable laws and known accounting principles, and material details had been exhibited before the Assessing Officer, it is for the Assessing Officer to reach such conclusions as he considered warranted from such data and any failure on his part to do so cannot be regarded as the assessee's failure to furnish the material facts truly and fully. Any lack of comprehension on the part of the Assessing Officer in understanding the details placed before him cannot confer a justification for reopening the assessment, long after the period of four years had expired. By notice dated December 18, 1996, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1989-90, for the following reasons: (a) that excessive deduction had been allowed under section 80HHC; (b) that excessive allowance had been granted under section 32AB; and (c) that adjustment from the Modvat account had wrongly been allowed as deduction as payment of excise duty. On a unit petition: Held, that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not establish, even prima facie, a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the material facts for the assessment, because: (a) the assessee had placed before the Assessing Officer all statements, a perusal of which clearly showed that all the materials required for calculating the extent of benefits under sections 80HHC and 32AB and the actual calculation had been placed before the officer, The mistake, if any, was solely due to the mistake made by the officer and was not a mistake attributable to any failure on the part of the assessee. (b) a perusal of the statements filed by the assessee in the assessment proceedings showed that the assessee had placed before the Assessing Officer every relevant detail regarding the excise duty paid, the manner in which the payment was effected, the amounts paid through the deposit account, the amount adjusted from the Modvat account, the opening balance in the Modvat accrual account, the extent of the credit taken from that account, the extent of the amount utilised from that account, as also the closing balance as on March 31, 1989. All the information required in relation to the account had been placed before the Assessing Officer. The assessee could not have done anything more. The utilisation of the Modvat credit results in the payment of the excise duty on the final products to the extent of the credit utilised. The description given by the assessee to the payment so made as excise duty paid was the correct and normal term to describe the payment and no fault could be found with the assessee for using that term and not bifurcating that amount into the amount paid through the I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 11 deposit account and the amount paid by adjustment of the Modvat credit. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully any fact in relation to the Modvat account or the amount of excise duty paid. The notice was liable to be quashed. 11.2 In the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar, ACIT (1) 268 ITR 332, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “Held, that the notice was clearly beyond the period of four years. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere stated that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year. Hence, the Assessing officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment proceedings. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quashed.” Similarly, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar, ACIT (2) 268 ITR 332, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “Held, that it was clear that the Revenue could not establish any lapse or failure on the part of the assessee-petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material necessary for the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year in question. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quashed.” 11.3 Further, in the case of Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. v. DCIT [2011] 333 ITR 483 (Guj), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: “Held, allowing the petitions, that on a plain reading of the reasons recorded, it was apparent that they were totally silent as regards any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessments for the relevant assessment years. Whether or not there was any failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, was a matter of fact and there could be no deemed failure as was sought to be contended on behalf of the income-tax authorities. Therefore, in the absence of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the notices under section 148 having been issued after the expiry of period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years, the very initiation of proceedings under section 147 stood vitiated and could not be sustained.” I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 12 11.4 In the case of CIT v. Sil Investments Ltd. 339 ITR 166, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed and held as under: “The assessments of the assessee for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 were reopened after four years on the ground that an amendment to section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had been made with retrospective effect from April 1, 1998. The conditions were not there in section 80HHC at the time when the assessee filed the returns or even the original assessments were made. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the invocation of the proviso to section 147 to be invalid and set aside the reassessments under section 147/148. On appeal: Held, dismissing the appeals, that the findings of the Tribunal was that all the relevant facts were available on record and that it could not be said that at the time when the assessee filed the returns, he had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessments because the amendment which was introduced retrospectively was not there. The law cannot contemplate the performance of an impossible act. Thus, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the proviso to section 147 could not be invoked merely because there was an amendment in the future which was introduced retrospectively and covered the period in question.” 11.5 Over and above, way back in 1976 itself, the Hon’ble Apex Court has predominantly laid down the law that the impugned notice issued after four years of the end of the relevant assessment year is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed, when there was not even a whisper in the reasons that there was any omission or failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing fully and truly the material facts for assessment. The relevant head-notes in the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court In the case of ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 are reproduced as under: “The reasons for the formation of the belief contemplated by section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the reopening of an assessment must I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 13 have a rational connection or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income-tax Officer and the formation of his belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. It is no doubt true that the court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the Income-tax Officer on the point as to whether action should be initiated for re-opening the assessment. At the same time we have to bear in mind that it is not any and every material, howsoever vague and indefinite or distant, remote and far-fetched, which would warrant the formation of the belief relating to escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment. The fact that the words "definite information" which were there in section 34 of the Act of 1922 at one time before its amendment in 1948 are not there in section 147 of the Act of 1961 would not lead to the conclusion that action can now be taken for reopening the assessment even if the information is wholly vague, indefinite, far- fetched and remote, The reason for the formation of the belief must be held in good faith and should not be a mere pretence. The original assessment for the assessment year 1958-59 was made on the respondent after allowing deduction of a sum of Rs. 10,494 'towards interest to certain creditors. Thereafter, by a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated March 8, 1967, served on the respondent on March 14, 1967, the Income-tax Officer sought to reopen the assessment. In his report made in February, 1967, to the Commissioner for reopening the assessment of the respondent for the assessment year 1958-59 after four years under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, two reasons were mentioned: (i) that M. K., who was shown to be one of the creditors of the respondent had since confessed that he was doing only name-lending; and (ii) that N.M., D.K.N., B.S. and others, whose names too were mentioned in the list of the creditors of the respondent, were known name-lenders. The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition claiming that there was no material before the Income-tax Officer on which he could have reason to believe that income chargeable to assessment for the year had escaped assessment by reason of the respondent's failure to disclose material facts, and stated that he had produced all books of account, bank statements and other necessary documents in connection with his return. The High Court, by a majority, held that the pre-conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction under section 147 were not fulfilled. On appeal: Held, affirming the decision of the High Court, on the facts, (i) that the second ground could not have led to the formation of the belief that the income of the respondent chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the assessment year 1958-59 because of failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts; CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL V. S. P. CHALIHA [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) followed (ii) that since there was nothing to show that the confession of M.K, related to a loan to the assessee, much less to the loan which was shown to have I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 14 been advanced by that person to the respondent, in the first ground the live link or close nexus which should be there between the material before the Income-tax Officer and the belief which he was to form was missing or in any event too tenuous to provide legally sound basis for reopening the assessment. Two conditions have to be satisfied before an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 in respect of an assessment beyond the period of Jour years but within a period of eight years from the end of the relevant year, viz., (i) the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and (ii) he must have reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee (a) to make a return under section 139 for the assessment year to the Income-tax Officer, or (b) to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. Both these conditions must co-exist to confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer. It is also imperative for the Income-tax Officer to record his reasons before initiating proceedings as required by section 148(2). Another requirement is that before notice is issued after the expiry of Jour years from the end of the relevant assessment years, the Commissioner should be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. The duty which is cast upon the assessee is to make a true and full disclosure of the primary facts at the time of the original assessment. Production before the Income-tax Officer of the account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Income- tax Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure contemplated by law. The duty of the assessee in any case does not extend beyond making a true and full disclosure of primary facts. Once he has done that his duty ends. It is for the Income-tax Officer to draw the correct inference from the primary facts. It is no responsibility of the assessee to advise the Income-tax Officer with regard to the inference which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessment. The grounds or reasons which lead to the formation of the belief contemplated by section 147(a) of the Act must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income of the assessee from assessment because of his failure or omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Once there exist reasonable grounds for the Income-tax Officer to form the above belief, that would be sufficient to clothe him with jurisdiction to issue notice. Whether the grounds are adequate or not is not a matter for the court to investigate. The sufficiency of grounds which induce the Income-tax Officer is, therefore, not a justiciable issue. It is, of course, open to the assessee to contend that the Officer did not hold the belief that there had been such non-disclosure. The existence of the belief can be challenged by the assessee but not the sufficiency of reasons for the belief. The expression "reason to believe" does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The reason must be held in good faith. It cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the formation of the belief have a rational connection I.T.A. No. 2079/Chny/17 15 with or a relevant bearing on the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Income-tax Officer in starting proceedings in respect of income escaping assessment is open to challenge in a court of law.” 11.6 Thus, the service of notice under section 148 of the Act 11.03.2015 is liable to be held as bad in law. 12. Under the above facts and circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) and held that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 29 th July, 2022 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (G. MANJUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 29.07.2022 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 6. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.