SH. KARAMJIT SINGH RAI, HOSHIARPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

ITA 227/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6409 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHRAY SARNA LD
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Competent authority; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 153; 147; 69; 148; 144; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 227/ASR/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SH. KARAMJIT SINGH RAI VPO MORANWALI, TEH. GARHSHANKER, DISTT. HOSHIARPUR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HOSHIARPUR [PAN:DFUPR 2358N] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ASHRAY SAR NA (LD. C. A.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (LD. D. R.) DATE OF HEARING: 28.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.01.2020 ORDER PER N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.01.2019 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A)-1, JALANDHAR U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ASSESSMEN T DATED 02.11.2017 FRAMED U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: AN INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED IN AIR FROM THE TEHSILD AR, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A LAND SITUATED IN V ILLAGE KITNA ITA NO. 227/ASR/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) SH. KARAM JIT SINGH RAI VS. ITO 2 FROM SMT. NARANJAN KAUR WIFE OF SH. UDAI SINGH FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.68,50,000/- AND ALSO INCURRED RS.4,11,000/- QUA REG ISTRATION CHARGES AT THE TIME OF REGISTRY. THE QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER NO. 4298 DATED 21.11.2016 TO VER IFY THE SOURCE OF THE SAID EXPENSES, WHICH REMAINED UN-REPLIED. THEREAFT ER VARIOUS STATUTORY NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS APPEARS FROM PARA NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH ALSO REMAINED UNANSWERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE IN CONSTRAINED CIRCUMSTANCES T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.72,61,000/- (RS.68,50,000/- + RS.4,11,000 REGISTRATION CHARGES) BY T REATING AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE SAID ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS INCLUDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT COMPLYING THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS AS ENVISAGED U/S 147 OF THE ACT, HOWEVER THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE ON LEGAL GROUNDS AS WELL AS ON MERITS. FEELING AGGRIEV ED, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEFORE US ON FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE APPELLANT DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO BE ASSES SED AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS.72,61,000/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF NIL AND ACCORDINGLY DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO PAY TAX AND INT EREST DEMANDED THEREON. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN FRAMING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144/147 AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ASSUMING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW AND WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS U/S 147 TO 151 AS ENVISAGED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.72,61, 000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PU RCHASE ITA NO. 227/ASR/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) SH. KARAM JIT SINGH RAI VS. ITO 3 PROPERTY, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, MODI FY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTH ER. 3. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 3 ARE BASED UPON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND GROUND NO. 4 IS GENERAL IN NATUR E WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION, HOWEVER GROUND NO. 2 I S A LEGAL GROUND WHICH REQUIRES CONSIDERATION FIRST, HENCE BEFORE PROCEEDI NG TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO DECIDE THE LEGAL GROUND 2 FIRST, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN FRAMING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144/147 AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ASSUMING JURISDICTION AS PER L AW AND WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS U/S 147 TO 151 AS ENVISAGED UNDER THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961. 4. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN SAHIL MAHAJAN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), PATHANKOT ( ITA NOS. 353 & 354/ASR/2016 DECIDED DATED 28.02.2019 BY AMRITSAR B ENCH) WHEREIN ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT . ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS P ASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. BILLO V. ITO ( IN ITA NO. 3817/DEL/2018 DECIDED ON 12.12.2018) AND BY THE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAKESH GUPTA V. CIT PANCHKULA AND ANOTHER (IN ITA NO. 227/ASR/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) SH. KARAM JIT SINGH RAI VS. ITO 4 CWP NO. 27068 OF 2016) DECIDED ON 27 TH APRIL, 2018 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY I NTERFERENCE BY THIS BENCH AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS EXTENSIVELY DEALT WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND PASSED THE ORDER ON THE REASONS RECORDED U/ S 147 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. LET US TO PERUSE THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THIS OFFICE AND ON THE PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT HAS COME TO NOTICE THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS PURCHASED IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY SITUATED IN VILL. MOR ANWALI, GARHSHANKAR FOR RS.68,50,000/- ON 18.02.2010 FROM S MT. NIRANJAN KAUR W/O SH. UDHAY SINGH ATTORNEY HOLDER O F SH. JASBIR SINGH ALIAS JUDGE RAI AND SH. BALBIR SINGH S ONS OF SH. UDHAY SINGH. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE RS.68,50,000/- INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PROP ERTY, BUT HE FAILED TO FILE ANY EXPLANATION. 02. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS.68,50,000 / PLUS REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS. 4,11,000/- (RS. 72,61,0 00/-) IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE T HEREOF; THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED TO TAX IN THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11 UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 03. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I HAVE INDEPENDENTL Y GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND AFTER INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF TH E RECORDS WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE ISSUE, I HAVE REASONS TO BE LIEVE THAT BY REASONS OF OMISSION AND FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE TRUE AND CORRECT PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS MENTIONED ABOVE AND OTHER UNEXPLAINED INCOME THAT MAY COME TO NOTICE DURING INVESTIGATION HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 227/ASR/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) SH. KARAM JIT SINGH RAI VS. ITO 5 6. WHILE COMING TO THE LEGAL ASPECT OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 IN THE INST ANT CASE HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION AND THERE WAS AB SOLUTELY NO MATERIAL ON RECORD, BY WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY REASON(S) TO BELIEVE BEFORE THE AO QUA ESCAPEMENT OF IN COME. THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SMT. PRAMJIT KAUR [2009] 311 ITR 38 (P&H) WHILE D EALING WITH IDENTICAL FACTS AND ISSUE HAS HELD AS UNDER . 7. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATIO N RECEIVED FROM THE SURVEY CIRCLE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD GOT PREPARED A DEMAND DRAFT FOR A SUM OF RS.83,040 WHIC H WAS NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT EXAMINED AND CORROBORATED THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SURVEY CIRCLE BEFORE RECORDING HIS OWN SATISFACTION OF ESCAPED INCOME AND INITIATI NG REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD THUS ACTED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAME WAS BASED ON THE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME CH ARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S TO ACT ON THE BASIS OF' REASONS TO BELIEVE' AND NOT ON ' R EASONS TO SUSPECT'. THE TRIBUNAL HAD, THUS, RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO INCORPORATE THE MATERIAL AND HIS SATISFACTION FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U NDER S. 148 OF THE ACT FOR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT VALID. 7. IN THE INSTANT CASE, FROM THE REASONS RECORDED, IT REFL ECTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAINLY RELIED UPON THE INFORMATIO N TO THE EFFECT 'THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY SIT UATED IN VILL. MORANWALI, GARHSHANKAR FOR RS.68,50,000/- ON 18.02. 2010 FROM SMT. NIRANJAN KAUR W/O SH. UDHAY SINGH ATTORNEY HOLDER O F SH. JASBIR SINGH ALIAS JUDGE RAI AND SH. BALBIR SINGH SONS OF SH. UD HAY SINGH. THE ITA NO. 227/ASR/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) SH. KARAM JIT SINGH RAI VS. ITO 6 ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE RS.68,50,0 00/- INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT HE FAILED TO FILE ANY EXPLANATION.' IN 2 ND PARA IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS.68,50,000/ PLUS REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS. 4,11,000/- (RS. 72,61,000/-) IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND NOT EXPLAI NED THE SOURCE THEREOF; THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED TO TAX IN THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX. THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN 3 RD PARA , THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT ' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I HAVE INDEPENDENTLY GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS AND INFORMAT ION AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND AFTER INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF TH E RECORDS WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE ISSUE, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT BY REASONS OF OMISSION AND FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE TRUE AND CORRECT PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS MENTIONED ABOVE AND OTHER UNEXPLAINED INCOME THAT MAY COME TO NOTICE DU RING INVESTIGATION HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 14 7 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 8. LET US TO PERUSE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW: '147. IF THE AO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY A. Y., HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 T O 153, ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSME NT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE C OURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, OR RECOMPUTE THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE A.Y. CONCERNED (HEREAFTER IN T HIS SECTION AND IN SECTIONS 148 TO 153 REFERRED TO AS T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR). PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS B EEN ITA NO. 227/ASR/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) SH. KARAM JIT SINGH RAI VS. ITO 7 MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SH ALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR Y EARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON TH E PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB SECTION (1) O F SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY A LL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THA T ASSESSMENT YEAR. EXPLANATION 1.- PRODUCTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER OF ACCOUNT BOOKS OR OTHER EVIDENCE FROM WHICH MATERIAL EVIDENCE COULD WITH DUE DILIGENCE HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED BY THE AO WILL NOT NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO DISCLOSURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOREGOING PROVISO. EXPLANATION 2- FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, T HE FOLLOWING SHALL ALSO BE DEEMED TO BE CASES WHERE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT NAMELY:- (A) WHERE NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH HIS TOTAL INCOME OR THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THIS ACT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX. (B) WHERE A RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT NO ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND IT IS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED THE INCOME OR HAS CLAIMED EXCESSIVE LOSS, DEDUCTION, ALLOWANCE OR RELIEF IN THE RETURN. (C) WHERE AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE, BUT- (I) INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS BEEN UNDER ASSESSED; OR ITA NO. 227/ASR/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) SH. KARAM JIT SINGH RAI VS. ITO 8 (II) SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT TOO LOW A RATE; OR (III) SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN MADE THE SUBJECT OF EXCESSIVE RELIEF UNDER THIS ACT; OR (IV) EXCESSIVE LOSS OR DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE UNDER THIS ACT HAS BEEN COMPUTED.' 9. THE LAW ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 IS VERY CLEAR. SECTION 147 AUTHORIZES THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS THE I NCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IF HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME FOR ANY ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND HAS DULY RECORDED THESE REASONS, HOWEVER IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE REASON S TO BELIEVE MUST BE BONA FIDE AND MUST BE BASED UPON RELEVANT MATE RIAL ON WHICH A REASONABLE PERSON COULD HAVE FORM THE REQUISITE BELIE F. 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FIRST AND SECOND PARTS OF THE R EASONS RECORDED BY THE AO, ARE ONLY INFORMATION AND THE THI RD PART OF THE SO- CALLED REASONS IS MERE REASON. FROM THE REASONS RECORDED, I T NOWHERE REFLECTS THAT AS TO WHAT INFORMATION AND CORROBORATIVE MATERIALS/RECORDS WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE ISSUE HAVE BEEN INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINED AND VERIFIED BY THE AO. THER E IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EVER APPLIED HIS O WN MIND AND INDEPENDENTLY ARRIVED AT A BELIEF THAT ON THE BASIS O F THE MATERIAL WHICH HE HAD BEFORE HIM, INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND MADE ANY EXERCISE TO FIND OUT THE REAL CONTROVERSY AND/OR M ATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE INITIATION OF PROCESS U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND EVER INCORPORATED THE MATERIAL BEFORE RE-OPENING THE ASSESSME NT AND SATISFIED HIMSELF BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO MAKE ANY EXE RCISE FOR REOPENING OF THE CASE INDEPENDENTLY AND WITH CORROBORA TIVE MATERIAL. THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SM T. PRAMJIT KAUR ITA NO. 227/ASR/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) SH. KARAM JIT SINGH RAI VS. ITO 9 (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ACT ON TH E BASIS OF REASONS TO BELIEVE AND NOT ON REASONS TO SUSPECT . THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ARE FA CTUALLY DISSIMILAR, WHEREAS THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE SIMILA R AND IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF DECISION RENDERED BY THE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASE. AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE INITIATIONS OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT ARE BASED UPON NO EVIDEN CE AND/OR UN- CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER FAI LED TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE AO REPRESENT ED ASSESSEE'S INCOME. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN SAHIL MAHAJAN VS ITO W RAD 6(3) PATHANKOT (SUPRA) HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO INDICATE SOME LINK OR NEXUS WHILE RECORDING REASONS FOR BELIEF THAT THE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT OF PROPERTY AC QUIRED IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT , WHICH ACCORDING TO OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IN THE INSTANT CASE IS MISSING AND T HE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT ITSELF ARE VAGUE, HENCE IN ANY SENSE CANNOT SURVIVE AND THEREFORE WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION TO HELD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ABSOLUTELY UNJUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE RE OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, EXPLANATION SUBMITTED AND EVIDEN CES PLACED ON RECORD JUDICIOUSLY. HENCE ON THIS GROUND ITSELF , THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING/ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. CONSEQ UENTLY STANDS QUASHED. 11. AS WE HAVE DECIDED THE LEGAL GROUND AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE NCE NOT ADVERTING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS THE SAME SHALL AMO UNT TO ACADEMIC EXERCISE ONLY. ITA NO. 227/ASR/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) SH. KARAM JIT SINGH RAI VS. ITO 10 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/01 /2020. SD/- SD/- (DR. A.L.SAINI) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED:16/01/2020. /GP/SR.PS. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THEN CIT(APPEALS) 5. SR DR, I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER