SMT. SARASWATI DEVI, Alwar V. ITO, Alwar

ITA 219/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5148 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM RAI DCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: KRANTI MEHTA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Gift; Depreciation; Tangible material; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 219/JP/2012 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 SMT. SARASWATI DEVI, 5/126, NEB HOUSING BOARD, ALWAR-301001 CUKE VS. ITO WARD 1(2) ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AFQPD 9405 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KRANTI MEHTA (C.A) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM RAI (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 11/10/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/12/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/ 12/11 OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE ASS ESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ALWAR ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG THE ACTION OF THE AO IN RECORDING REASON U/S 147 AND ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO VALID AND LEGAL REASON TO INITIATE PROCEEDIN GS U/S 147/148 SINCE THE LOSS OF RS.139868/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF TRUCK WAS NEVER CLAIMED IN THE RETURN. ACCORDINGLY, THE NOTICE U/S 148 AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147/148 ARE VOID-AB-INI TIO AND HENCE DESERVE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT GIVING ANY FINDING WITH REGARD TO THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 UPON THE APPELLANT IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH THE AO DID NOT ASSUME ANY JURISDICTION TO CALL FOR INFO RMATION, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC AND TO PASS ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW AND HENCE DESERVES TO BE QUA SHED. 2 ITA NO. 219/JP/2012. SMT. SARASWATI DEVI, ALWAR. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT POWER VESTED WITH THE AO TO MAKE ENQUIRIES/ADDITIONS BEYOND THE REASON RECORDED U/S 147 EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO POWER VESTED WITH THE AO TO MAKE ENQUIRIES/ADDITIONS BEYOND THE REASON RECORDED U/S 147. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ERRED IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS/ALLOW ANCES. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO U/S 144 EVEN WHEN THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED BEFO RE PASSING ORDER U/S 144. NO NOTICE U/S 144 PROPOSING THE ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES WAS SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING TRADING ADDITION OF RS.174102/- MADE BY AO BY ESTIMATING THE TURNOVER OF RS.2450000 0/- AS AGAINST THE DECLARED TURNOVER OF RS.24327162/- AND APPLYING THE ARBITRARY GP RATE 2.5% AGAINST THE DECLARED RATE OF 1.8%. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISALLOW ANCE OF SALARY OF RS.54000/- MADE BY AO WITHOUT ANY COGENT BASIS EVEN WHEN THE SALARY WAS PAID TO SUNIL KUMAR WHO HAD RENDERED SER VICES TO THE APPELLANT. 7. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISALLOW ANCE OF OTHER EXPENSES OF RS.19850/- MADE BY AO ON AD HOC BASIS @ 25% OF T OTAL EXPENSES WITHOUT PINPOINTING ANY SPECIFIC ITEM OF DISALLOWAN CE. 8. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.23340/- MADE BY AO EVEN WHEN THIS DEPRECIATIO N WAS VALIDLY CLAIMED ON COMPUTERS USED FOR BUSINESS BY THE APPEL LANT. 9. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE HOUS EHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.114530/- AS AGAINST RS.31000/- MADE BY AO EVEN W HEN THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE FAMILY OF APPELLANT ARE A DEQUATE AND REASONABLE. 10. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INC OME FROM TRUCK OF RS.42000/- TAKEN BY THE AO U/S 44AE OF TRUCK NO.HR4 7-8163 AS AGAINST THE DECLARED LOSS OF RS.34175/-. 2. GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 ARE REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HER RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 3 ITA NO. 219/JP/2012. SMT. SARASWATI DEVI, ALWAR. UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 2/12/2003 DECLARING TOTAL IN COME OF RS. 1,63,776/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT ON 15.03.2004 AT THE DECLARED INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO PROPOSED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT ON 29.04.200 4 ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A TRUCK HAVING REGISTRATION NO. HR47/8163 FOR RS. 290000/- AND HAS CLAIMED LOSS OF RS. 139868/- IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON THIS SALE. SINCE, THE BLOCK OF TRUCK WAS STILL CONTINUED, THE CLAIM OF LOSS ON SAL E OF TRUCK IN THE OPINION OF THE AO WAS WRONG. THUS, THE AO FORMED THE BELIEVE THAT INC OME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 139868/- HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY DATED 10.06.2004 AND POINT ED OUT THAT THE SAID LOSS ON SALE OF TRUCK WAS DEBITED IN THE PROFIT HOWEVER, THE LOS S ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS ADDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER COMPUTATION STATEMENT AND RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO HOWEVER, PROCEEDED WITH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEED ING AND PASS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 144 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT AND DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION ON THAT ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE AO HAD MADE CERTAIN OTHER ADDITIONS WHILE COMPLETING THE REASSESSMENT. THE A SSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 2.1 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT O NCE THE AO FOUND THAT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AR E NOT CORRECT AND NO ADDITION IS MADE ON THE SAID ISSUE THEN THE AO IS NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE OTHER ADDITIONS WHILE COMPLETED THE REASSESSMENT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONT ENTIONS, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS 195 TAXMAN 117 AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE 4 ITA NO. 219/JP/2012. SMT. SARASWATI DEVI, ALWAR. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SH RI RAM SINGH 306 ITR 343 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO BLANKET POWER TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S 147 REGARD ING ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF ESCAPED INCOME BY RESORTING TO MAKE ENQUIRY AND THEREBY INCLUDE DIFFERENT ITEMS OF INCOME NOT CONNECTED OR RELATED WITH THE REASONS TO BELIEVE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE ASSUMED JURISDICTION. ONCE THE AO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE INCOME AS PROPOSED IN THE RE ASONS RECORDED THEN HE CANNOT PROCEED TO MAKE OTHER DISALLOWANCE OR ADDITIONS WHI LE COMPLETING THE REASSESSMENT. 2.2 LD. AR HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVEN OTHERWIS E THERE WAS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL OR INFORMATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE A SSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE FORM THE OPINION THAT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX ON ACCOUN T OF LASS ON SALE OF TRUCK HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE REOPENING IS NOT VALID. H E HAS REFERRED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE INCOME OF RS. 1,63,776/- AFTER MAKING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 1,39,863/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS ON SALE OF TRUCK AND THEREFORE THE REASONS REC ORDED BY THE AO ARE NOT AS PER THE ACTUAL FACTS AND RECORD. THUS, HE HAS PLEADED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT VALID AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2.3 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE OTHER ADDITIONS , WHICH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED 5 ITA NO. 219/JP/2012. SMT. SARASWATI DEVI, ALWAR. ASSESSMENT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. (I) CIT VS. RAM KISHAN LEELA 295 ITR 525 (RAJ. HC) (II) N. GOVINDARAJA VS. ITO, WARD-8(2) 377 ITR 243 (KARN ATAKA) HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT ONCE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT WAS OPENED AND IS NOT CONFINED TO SCOPE OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ASSUMING JURISDICTION. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE IT ACT ON 15/03/2004. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT AC T ON 29.04.2004 BY RECORDING THE REASONS AS UNDER:- IN THIS CASE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NET INCOME OF RS. 1,63,776/- WAS FILED ON 2.12.2003. ON PERUSAL OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE TRUCK NO. HR47/8163 FOR RS. 2,90,000/- AND CLAIMED A LOSS OF RS. 1,39,868/- ON SALE OF TRUCK. THE CLAIM OF LOSS ON SALE OF TRUCK IS WRONG, AS THE BLOCK OF ASSETS CONSIST THIS TRUCK IS NOT REDUC ED TO NIL. I HAVE THEREFORE, REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF RS. 1,39,868/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 14 7 OF IT ACT 1961. ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF IT ACT 1961. FROM THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO IT IS CLEAR TH AT THE AO FORMED THE BELIEF THAT THE LOSS OF RS. 1,39,868/- ON SALE OF TRUCK CLAIM B Y THE ASSESSEE IS WRONG AS THE 6 ITA NO. 219/JP/2012. SMT. SARASWATI DEVI, ALWAR. BLOCK OF ASSET DID NOT REDUCE TO NIL. IN REPLY TO THIS NOTICE THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 13/10/2004 WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 4 OF T HE PAPER BOOK AND SPECIFICALLY EXPLAINED THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME T HIS LOSS WAS ADDED BACK TO THE NET PROFIT BY STATING THAT LOSS ON SALE OF TRUCK (N OT TO BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE BLOCK IS CONTINUING). 3.1 IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND THE RETURN OF INCOME ARE MATCHING AND THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY IN ANY OF THE ITEMS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE AO WHILE ISS UING THE NOTICE U/S 148 HAS ASSUMED WRONG FACTS AND THEREFORE THE FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS ON SALE OF TRUCK AS ESCAPED IS NOT BASED ON CORRECT FACTS. THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY LOSS OF ACCOU NT OF SALE OF TRUCK HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE REASSESSMEN T AS THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN PARA 10 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FURTHE R, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 2/12/2003 AND TIME TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS AVAILABLE UP TO 30 TH SEP. 2004 WHEREAS THE AO HAS RESORTED TO ISSUE A N OTICE U/S 148 ON 29.04.2004 INSTEAD OF ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 143(2 ). THEREFORE, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE WHEN THE TIME TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO WHEN THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS I SSUED ON 29.4.2004. 3.2 AS REGARDS MAKING THE OTHER ADDITIONS BY THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE REASSESSMENT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE AO ACCEP TED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE OPENED AND JURISDICTION U/S 147 7 ITA NO. 219/JP/2012. SMT. SARASWATI DEVI, ALWAR. WAS ASSUMED BY THE AO. THE LD. D/R HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI RAM KISHAN LEELA (SUPRA) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF GOVINDARAJA (SUPRA). HOWEVER, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAM KISHAN (SUPRA) BEFORE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WA S NOT REGARDING THE OTHER ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO DESPITE DROPPING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. WHEREAS THE HONBLE JURISDICTION HIGH COU RT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI RAM SINGH (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS HELD IN PARA 18 TO 21 AS UNDER:- 18. WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE REASONIN G OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGANMOHAN RAO (SUPRA). WE MAY ALSO NOTE THAT THE HEADING OF SECTION 147 IS 'INCOME ESC APING ASSESSMENT' AND THAT OF SECTION 148 'ISSUE OF NOTICE WHERE INCOME E SCAPED ASSESSMENT'. SECTIONS 148 IS SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLIMENTARY TO SECTION 147. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 148 MANDATES REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUB-SECTION (1) THEREOF MANDATES SERVIC E OF NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDS TO ASSESS, RE ASSESS OR RECOMPUTE ESCAPED INCOME. SECTION 147 MANDATES RECORDING OF R EASONS TO BELIEVE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ALL THESE CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED T O ASSESS OR REASSESS THE ESCAPED INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. AS PER EXPLANATIO N (3) IF DURING THE COURSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES TO CONCLUSION THAT SOME ITEMS HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THOSE ITEMS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE REASONS TO E AS RECORDED FOR IN ITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE NOTICE, HE WOULD BE COMPETENT TO MAKE ASSES SMENT E ITEMS. HOWEVER, THE LEGISLATURE COULD NOT BE PRESUMED TO H AVE INTENDED TO GIVE BLANKET POWERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ON ASS UMING JURISDICTION UNDER 8 ITA NO. 219/JP/2012. SMT. SARASWATI DEVI, ALWAR. SECTION 147 REGARDING ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF ESCAPED INCOME, HE WOULD KEEP ON MAKING ROVING INQUIRY AND THEREBY INC LUDING DIFFERENT ITEMS OF INCOME NOT CONNECTED OR RELATED WITH THE REASONS TO BELIEVE, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE ASSUMED JURISDICTION. FOR EVERY NEW ISSUE COMING BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSM ENT OR REASSESSMENT OF ESCAPED INCOME, AND WHICH HE INTENDS TO TAKE INTO A CCOUNT, HE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ISSUE A FRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. 19. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS IS NOTED ABOVE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED WITH THE JUSTIFICATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE REGAR DING THE ITEMS VIZ., CLUB FEES, GIFTS AND PRESENTS AND PROVISION FOR LEAVE EN CASHMENT, BUT, HOWEVER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE FOUND THE DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HH AND 80-I AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE NOT AD MISSIBLE. HE CONSEQUENTLY WHILE NOT MAKING ADDITIONS ON THOSE IT EMS OF CLUB FEES, GIFTS AND PRESENTS, ETC., PROCEEDED TO MAKE DEDUCTIONS UN DER SECTION 80HH AND 80-I AND ACCORDINGLY REDUCED THE CLAIM ON THESE ACC OUNTS. 20. THE VERY BASIS OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR WHICH REASONS TO BELIEVE WERE RECORDED WERE INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT IN RE SPECT OF ITEMS OF CLUB FEES, GIFTS AND PRESENTS, ETC., BUT THE SAME HAVING NOT BEEN DONE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO REDUCE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HH AND 80-I WHICH AS PER OUR DISCUSSION WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. HAD THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED NOT TO MAKE DIS-ALLOWAN CE IN RESPECT OF THE ITEMS OF CLUB FEES, GIFTS AND PRESENTS, ETC., THEN IN VIE W OF OUR DISCUSSION AS ABOVE, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED AS PER EXPLANATION 3 T O REDUCE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HH AND 8-I AS WELL. 21. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD THE JURISDICTION TO REASS ESS ISSUES OTHER THAN THE ISSUES IN RESPECT OF WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATE D BUT HE WAS NOT SO JUSTIFIED 9 ITA NO. 219/JP/2012. SMT. SARASWATI DEVI, ALWAR. WHEN THE REASONS FOR THE INITIATION OF THOSE PROCEE DINGS CEASED TO SURVIVE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE ANSWER THE FIRST PART OF QUESTION IN AFFIRMATIVE IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE AND THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION AGAINST THE REVENUE. THUS, THE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT NO ADDITION COUL D BE MADE IN THE REASSESSMENT, IF NO ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE GROUNDS ON WHICH P ROCEEDING U/S 147 OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED HAD BEEN MADE BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE BINDING PR ECEDENTS THE REOPENING AS WELL AS THE REASSESSMENT IS NOT VALID AND THE SAME IS QUASH ED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 /12/2017. SD/- FOT; IKY JKO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 12/12/2017. POOJA/- VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. SARASWATI DEVI, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 1(2), ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE [ITA NO. 219/JP/2012] VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR 10 ITA NO. 219/JP/2012. SMT. SARASWATI DEVI, ALWAR.