SHRI KASHMIR SINGH S/O SHRI SHINGARA SINGH, AMRITSAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), AMRITSAR

ITA 23/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8533 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148; 144; 143(3); 142(1); 274; 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 23/(Asr)/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Kashmir Singh S/o Sh. Shingara Singh, VPO – Mirankot Kalan, Ajnala Road, Amritsar PAN: CSEPS 1035F Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Amritsar (Punjab) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Trilochan Singh P S Khalsa, DR Date of Hearing: 16.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar, dated 29.11.2017, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), dated 27.12.2016 for Assessment Year 2009-10. ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 2 2. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. That the Appellate Order passed by Worthy CIT(A) u/s 250(6) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts on records and this illegality pervades all other grounds of appeal. 2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law while passing the Assessment Order u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 instead of u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961, which proves that Assessment framed by him was without application of mind and in post haste manner and the Worthy CIT(A) has impliedly approved it without going through the facts and without adjudicate on this ground of appeal as accordance with law. 3. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law for assuming jurisdiction to make reassessment u/s 148 without fulfilling the mandatory requirement of service of notice u/s 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961 within stipulated period as provided by law as well as reopening based on AIR information only and the Worthy CIT(A) has impliedly approved it without adjudicate on this ground of appeal and to that extent the order of the Worthy CIT(A) is totally bad in law and contrary to the procedure of law. 4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law while re-open the assessment that two notices u/s 148 were issued to the assessee with different numbers for the same assessment year on 29/3/2016 simultaneously and two assessments were also framed by the Ld. AO for the same assessment year on 8/11/2016 & 27/12/2016, which is totally bad in law as well as without application of mind by the Ld. AO and Worthy Pr. Commissioner of Income- tax - II, Amritsar who approved the action of Ld. AO and the Worthy CIT(A) has similarly erred on facts and in law in confirming the same, which is contrary to the due process of law. 5. That the learned AO has reopened two re-assessments in post haste manner on 29-3- 2016 based on AIR information available on AST as well as based on assessee have two bank accounts with different banks and as such belief formed by him in both reassessments are wrong which are subject matter of the reopening of the case for this particular assessment year and he did not conduct his own investigations to satisfy himself about the correctness of particulars before reasons recorded, which is totally erroneous and untenable. The reasons recorded for reopening are vague and there in no live nexus between the reasons recorded and the income escaping assessment and the Worthy CIT(A) has similarly erred on facts and in law in confirming the same. ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 3 6. That the learned AO has erred on facts and in law in reopening of re- assessment is bad and liable to be quashed as the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment does not meet the statutory requirements of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reason recorded by the AO is totally based on AIR information available on AST and initiation of proceedings was without any material for escapement of income for assessment year under consideration and the Worthy CIT(A) has similarly erred on facts and in law in confirming the same. 7. That the learned AO has acted in post haste manner while deciding ex-parte assessment without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The re-assessment framed by the Ld. AO needs to be quashed based on this very ground only and the Worthy CIT(A) has similarly erred on facts and in law in confirming the same. 8. That the appellant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from attending the income-tax proceedings because neither any notice u/s 142(1) received by him and nor any affixture had been made in his house premises mentioned in assessment order by the Ld. AO. Issuance and service of a valid notice in a pre-requisite for framing assessment/reassessment and the Worthy CIT(A) has similarly erred on facts and in law in confirming the same. 9. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has acted post haste in framing exparte assessment without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant and accordingly the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in not being able to represent his case and the Worthy CIT(A) has similarly erred on facts and in law in confirming the same. Without prejudice to above contention about the orders being illegal, null and void. 10. That on facts and in law the Ld. Assessing Officer and the Worthy CIT(A) both has failed to take cognizance on the source of deposit with concrete evidences produced before them and both of them has added as escaped income without giving any reason as well as without application of mind, which is contrary, arbitrary and illegal as per procedure of law. 11. That on facts and under law, the additions of Rs. 1,82,93,187/- being cash deposit in banks and Rs. 146047/- being interest income are uncalled for and needs to be deleted. 12. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any new ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 4 3. Succinctly stated, on the basis of information received by the AO that the assessee had during the year under consideration made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.1,38,47,000/- in his bank accounts, viz. (i) SB A/c No. 81002200011166 with Syndicate Bank Amritsar : Rs. 95,00,000; and (ii) SB A/c No. 8355 with Punjab and Sind Bank, Amritsar: Rs.43,47,000/-, the case of the assessee was reopened by him and Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.03.2016 was served on the assessee vide speed post. 4. After change of incumbent fresh statutory notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 01/08.08.2016 and served upon the assessee through registered post. Notice u/s 142(1) was again issued on 29.08.2016 fixing the hearing of the case on 07.09.2016. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) a/w a ‘Show cause’ notice (SCN) u/s 274 was issued on 26/27.10.2016. Again notice u/s 142(1) a/w SCN was issued on 16.11.2016 fixing the hearing of the case on 21.11.2016. All the aforesaid notices were received back undelivered, for the reason, that the address therein mentioned was incomplete. In compliance to another notice u/s 142(1) a/w SCN, the assessee though appeared before the A.O, and his case was adjourned to 07.12.2016, but on the latter date he failed to put up an appearance. Notice u/s 142(1) ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 5 alongwith a revised SCN u/s 274, dated 19.12.2016 was thereafter issued and was got served through affixture at the available address of the assessee. As the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities failed to attend the proceedings, therefore, the AO was constrained to proceed with and frame the assessment vide his order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016, determining his total income at Rs. 3,79,71,240/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). During the course of the appellate proceedings the assessee assailed the validity of the reopening of his case on multiple grounds, as well as challenged the additions made by the AO on merits. In so far the contentions that were advanced by the assessee as regards the validity of the reopening of his case, the same did not find favor with the CIT(A) who upheld the same. As regards the challenge thrown by the assessee to the merits of the additions, the CIT(A) partly finding favor with the same scaled down the addition of Rs. 3,79,71,240/- that was made by the AO to an amount of Rs. 1,84,39,234/-, viz. (i) cash deposit in the bank accounts : Rs. 1,82,93,187/-; and (ii) interest credited in the bank accounts : Rs. 1,46,047/-. ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 6 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR in order to support his respective contentions. Before us the Ld. AR has challenged the validity of the reopening of the assessee’s case on multiple grounds, viz. (i) that a perusal of the ‘reasons to believe’ on the basis of which the case of the assessee had been reopened clearly reveals non-application of mind by the AO to the material available on record; (ii) that the Pr. CIT had granted his approval/sanction for reopening the case of the assessee in a mechanical manner, i.e, without any application of mind; (iii) that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was never received by the assessee prior to framing of the reassessment in question; and (iv) that the AO had taken recourse to parallel assessment proceedings and, by issuing two separate notices u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee, both of which were backed by separate ‘reasons to believe’ wrongly assumed jurisdiction for reopening his case. ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 7 8. As the assessee has assailed the validly of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO for reopening of his case, therefore, we shall first deal with the same. As stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, we find that the AO in the case before us had taken recourse to a parallel or dual set of reassessment proceedings, i.e, by issuing two separate Notices u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29.03.2016, both of which were issued on the basis of separate and distinct ‘reasons to believe’. For the sake of clarity, we may herein observe, that while for one Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, was issued by the AO, i.e., ITO, Ward-5(2), Amritsar, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of the cash deposit of Rs.43.47 lacs in his bank A/c (Page 33-34 of APB); while for on the same date another Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 was issued by the same A.O, i.e, ITO, Ward-5(2), Amritsar to the assessee, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of the cash deposit of Rs. 95,00,000/- in his another bank A/c (Page 38 & 39A of APB). As is discernible from the record, the Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-II, Amritsar, had separately approved both the ‘reasons to believe’ recorded by the same AO and, on the same date, i.e., on 28.03.2016 (Page 32 & 39 of APB). On a further perusal of the record, we find that in so far the Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.216 that was ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 8 issued by the AO, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of the cash deposits of Rs.43.47 lac (supra) in his bank account, the same had culminated into an assessment vide an order passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3), dated 08.11.2016 (Page 84-85 of “APB”), wherein the AO taking cognizance of the fact that the cash deposits of Rs. 43.47 lac (supra) in question were sourced out of the agriculture income of the assessee, had thus refrained from drawing any adverse inferences and making any addition in his hands. However, we find that after framing of the aforesaid assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) dated 08.11.2016, the AO had thereafter proceeded with the reassessment proceedings that were separately initiated by him vide Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of cash deposit of Rs. 95 lac (supra) in his bank A/c, and had thereafter framed the impugned assessment in question vide his order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016, determining the assessee’s income at Rs. 3,79,71,240/-. At this stage, we may herein observe, that as the reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for the same year, i.e A.Y 2009-10, were initiated by the AO, i.e., ITO, Ward-5(2), Amritsar, on the basis of two Notices u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, both of which were backed by separate ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 9 reasons to believe, viz. (i) Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 that was issued for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of the cash deposit of Rs.43.47 lacs in his bank A/c (Page 33-34 of APB); and (ii). Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 that was issued by the same A.O, i.e, ITO, Ward-5(2), Amritsar, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of the cash deposit of Rs. 95,00,000/- in his bank A/c (Page 38 & 39A of APB), therefore, it is absolutely incorrect on the part of the A.O, as stated by him at Page 1 – Para 2 of his impugned assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016, that a Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 was issued by him, for the reason, that as per information available with his office, the assessee, viz. Shri. Kashmir Singh s/o. Sh. Shingara Singh, VPO. Mirakot Kalan, Amritsar had made cash deposits of Rs. 95,00,000/- in Saving Bank A/c No. 81002200011166 maintained with Syndicate Bank, Amritsar and cash deposits of Rs. 43,47,000/- with Punjab and Sind Bank, Amritsar vide account no. SB-8355 during the year under consideration. As observed by us hereinabove, the A.O had not issued one Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 as regards the aforesaid unproved cash deposits in the assessee’s bank accounts, which as per law he ought to have done, but in fact had issued two separate ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 10 Notices u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, both of which were backed by separate ‘reasons to believe’. As both the Notices u/s 148 haver been issued on the same date, i.e, on 29.03.2016, therefore, it would be important to determine as to which of them was issued prior to the other. As the necessary sanction/approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Amritsar u/s 151 of the Act had been obtained by the A.O, i.e, ITO, Ward- 5(2), Amritsar, on the same date, i.e, on 28/03/2016, therefore, the fact that as to which of the Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 was issued prior to the other cannot be gathered therefrom (Page 32 & 39 of APB). Also, as both the Notices u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 are stated to have been issued on the same date, therefore, the fact as to which of them followed the other cannot also be gathered therefrom. But then, the respective dispatch numbers mentioned on the face of the aforesaid notices would assist us in gathering as to which Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 was issued prior to the other. As per the Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 that was issued by the AO, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of the cash deposits of Rs.43.47 lac (supra) in his bank account [which thereafter had culminated into an assessment vide an order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3), dated 08.11.2016] (Page 34 of “APB”), we find that the reference ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 11 number therein mentioned is 11480 a/w EP 37062924 1 IN (bar code), while for as per the Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 that was issued by the same A.O, i.e, ITO, Ward-5(2), Amritsar to the assessee, for the reason, that he had failed to prove the source of the cash deposit of Rs. 95,00,000/- in his bank A/c (Page 38 of APB) the reference number therein mentioned is 11517 a/w EP 37063115 7 IN (bar code). On the basis of the aforesaid reference numbers mentioned on the face of the aforementioned Notices u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, it can safely be inferred that the Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 that was issued by the AO, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of the cash deposits of Rs.43.47 lac (supra) in his bank account was issued anterior/prior to the other notice. Apart from that, the fact that the reopening of the assessee’s case u/s 147 of the Act, for the reason, that he had failed to prove the source of the cash deposits of Rs.43.47 lac (supra) in his bank account had thereafter culminated into an assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3), dated 08.11.2016, while for the impugned reassessment proceedings taken recourse to by the A.O u/s 147 of the Act, qua the failure of the assessee to prove the source of cash deposit of Rs. 95,00,000/- in his bank A/c, had culminated into the impugned assessment ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 12 u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016, i.e, much subsequent thereto, also supports our aforesaid conviction. At this stage, we may herein observe, that neither there is anything discernible from the records, nor brought to our notice by the ld. D.R which would prove otherwise. We, thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, are of the considered view, that the impugned Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 that was issued by the AO, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 95 lac (supra) in his bank account, was issued at a point of time when reassessment proceedings had already been initiated on the basis of an another Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, that was issued, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of cash deposits of Rs.43.47 lac (supra) in his bank account. 9. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, that the assessee has assailed before us the validity of the impugned assessment that was framed by the AO vide his order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016, i.e., on the basis of the reopening of his case vide Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, i.e., at a point of time when another Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, i.e, of even date, was pending assessment, and thereafter had culminated into an assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 13 08.11.2016. In sum and substance, the controversy involved in the present appeal as regards the validity of the reopening of the assessee’s case lies in a narrow compass, i.e., as to whether or not the impugned order passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016, i.e, the assessment framed by him on the basis of the impugned Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, that was issued during the pendency of the reassessment proceedings that were already initiated by him vide another Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, could be sustained?. In our considered view, the AO during the pendency of the reassessment proceedings which were initiated by him by issuing a notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, qua the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 43.47 (supra) in the assessee’s bank account, which thereafter had culminated into an assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated 08.11.2016, was clearly divested of his jurisdiction from initiating another reassessment proceeding by issuing Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, on the ground, that the assessee had failed to explain the source of the cash deposit of Rs. 95 lac (supra) in his another bank A/c. We are of a strong conviction that an AO is precluded from simultaneously embarking upon two set of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, in respect of an assessee, for the same year. In our considered view, now when the AO held a bonafide ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 14 belief that the assessee had failed to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs. 43.47 lacs (supra) and Rs. 95 lac (supra) in his bank accounts, then, he ought to have initiated reassessment proceedings on the basis of his aforesaid belief by issuing one Notice u/s 148 of the Act, and could not have taken recourse to initiation of piecemeal reassessment proceedings qua both the aforesaid issues. Apart from that, we are of the considered view, that during the pendency of the reassessment proceedings initiated in the case of an assessee u/s 147 of the Act, the AO is divested from assuming jurisdiction and proceeding with another set of reassessment proceeding qua the same year in the hands of the said assessee. Be that as it may, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the second set of impugned reassessment proceeding initiated by the AO in the case before us, which thereafter had culminated into the impugned order u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016. Our aforesaid conviction is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Marwadi Shares and Finance Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, SCA/17698/2017, dated 07.03.2018, wherein it was observed as under : 16. The law on subject is sufficiently clear. There can be only one process of assessment or reassessment. Pending any such assessment or reassessment, there cannot be a notice of reopening. The Courts have held that there cannot be reopening of assessment which is not yet complete. Counsel for the petitioner ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 15 has referred to several decisions in this regard which we have noted. Reference to only one of them would be sufficient. This Court in case of Aditya Medisales Ltd (supra) had occasion to take into consideration various judgements of High Courts and Supreme Court in background of facts which were thus. The petitioner had filed the return of income for the assessment year 2005-06. Notice of reopening the assessment issued by the Assessing Officer. Such notice was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court. High Court had admitted the petition and granted interim relief staying further proceedings pursuant to such notice. When the petition was pending, the Assessing Officer issued yet another notice under Section 147 of the Act seeking to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the same assessment year, however, on the basis of independent reasons possibly upon availability of fresh material. This second notice of reopening was challenged on various grounds including on the ground that in face of the pendency of the first notice of reopening, there could not be successive second reopening of the assessment. The Court held and observed as under: "7. There cannot be two parallel assessments based on two notices. As long as first assessment is not completed, question of reassessment would not arise. Once a notice is issued under section 148 of the Act, it triggers initiation of proceedings for assessment or reassessment of income which may have escaped assessment earlier. During such assessment, any income which may come to the notice of Assessing Officer may also be brought to tax. Till this assessment is not completed, it would not be possible for him to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Until the assessment, be it original or reopened, is pending before the Assessing Officer, the question of issuing notice for reopening would not arise. As noted, in case of Ranchhoddas Karsondas (supra), the Supreme Court had taken a view that till the assessment proceedings are pending, it cannot be stated that there was escapement of income. To our mind, there is no distinction whether the pending assessment is pursuant to the return filed by the assessee originally or in response to the notice of reassessment issued by the Assessing Officer. In either case within the contours of the provisions for assessment, the assessment of the income of the assessee at the hands of the Revenue is at large. 8. We are conscious that the conclusion that we have arrived at, may lead to a piquant situation for the revenue. In a given case, it may so happen that notice for reopening may have been issued within the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, on the reasons recorded, which may have no relevance to non disclosure of material facts. After four years it is entirely possible that the Revenue may chance upon further materials not disclosed by the assessee in the original return ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 16 or during the assessment proceedings which may have a bearing on income escaping assessment. The suggestion that if additional information is available with the Revenue later on, it is always open for the Assessing Officer to withdraw the first notice and issue second notice including both sets of reasons, would fail in such an example. In the example cited, the Revenue would have a difficult choice to make whether to rest on the notice already issued and the reasons recorded for the same which would deprive the revenue of the additional grounds to support reopening or after withdrawing the first notice to issue a fresh notice which would be beyond a period of four years and thereby sacrifice the reasons already recorded, which would not sustain the test of failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. However, such difficulty in making a choice, would not govern the interpretation of statutory provisions or would permit us to enlarge the scope of reassessment by holding that the second notice of reopening pending reassessment would also be permissible. We do not discern any concept of alternative or protective notice of reassessment. In the result, impugned notice of reopening is bad in law. This is despite the fact that the first notice came to be quashed on the ground that on the basis of reasons recorded, it cannot be stated that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 9. To this conclusion, we may however add a caveat. In a given case, if it is found that the notice itself is invalid being nonest or ab initio void, it would be no valid notice in eye of law, pursuant to which any valid assessment proceedings would initiate. For example, if the notice is issued by an authority who was simply not competent or was issued without the sanction of the Commissioner when so required, the notice would be void, nonest and having no effect in eye of law. Such a notice would not reopen an assessment, would not commence assessment proceedings and whenever so declared, such a declaration would relate back to the original issuance thereof. In such a situation, if the Revenue has issued a second notice for reopening, the same would not be rendered invalid. In this context we may recall, the Supreme Court in case of Ranchhoddas Karsondas (supra), in the context of notice of reopening issued pending a return of nil income filed by the assessee linked the validity of the notice to the validity of the return observing that if the return filed by the assessee was no return, the conditions of section 34 (of the Act of 1922) would apply and the Assessing Officer could carry out the assessment." 17. When therefore in the present case the first notice of reopening of assessment was not withdrawn, there was no scope, nor permissible in law to issue fresh notice of reopening. Counsel for the Revenue, however, vehemently contended that such withdrawal of notice of reopening must be deduced from ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 17 facts and attendant circumstances. His contention was that the Revenue had, all along, intended to withdraw the notice and the fact, that such notice was abandoned, was sufficient to establish withdrawal thereof. We, however, hold a slightly different belief. A notice of reopening which is once issued would remain in operation unless it is specifically withdrawn, quashed or gets time barred. First instance would be at the volition of the Assessing Officer as the person who had issued the notice. He can recall the notice for valid reasons and may even issue a fresh notice which is not impermissible in law. Nevertheless, there has to be an action of withdrawal. Mere intention, a stated intention or even an intention which is otherwise put in practice cannot be equated with withdrawal of the notice. By mere intention to abandon the proceedings arising out of the notice, the Assessing Officer cannot bring about the desired result of withdrawing the notice. The notice was either withdrawn or is stood as it is, may be without any follow up action on part of the Assessing Officer.” As observed by us hereinabove, the Hon’ble High Court in its aforesaid order had relied on its earlier order passed in the case of Aditya Medisales Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 197 (Guj). Also, a similar view had earlier been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Kishan Leela, ITA No. 107 and 109 of 2006, dated 09/10/2006. In its aforesaid order, it was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that second reassessment proceedings could not be initiated while the first reassessment proceedings were pending. It was therein observed, that once the reassessment proceedings are pending, then, the entire assessment is open and the same is not confined to the reasons recorded by the A.O for assuming jurisdiction. Relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Ram Kishan Leela (supra), the ITAT, Delhi ‘G’ ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 18 Bench in the case of Mrs. Sarla Shreedharan Vs. ITO (2007) 112 TTJ 220 (Del), had observed, that pending reassessment proceedings on the earlier notice, reassessment made on the basis of a subsequent notice was illegal and liable to be quashed. Backed by the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view, that now when the reassessment proceedings were initiated by the A.O, i.e, ITO, Ward-5(2), Amritsar, vide Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, for bringing to tax the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 43.47 (supra) in the assessee’s bank account that as per him had escaped assessment (which thereafter had culminated into an assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated 08.11.2016), he was clearly divested of his jurisdiction from initiating another set of reassessment proceeding, i.e, the impugned reassessment proceeding in question by issuing another Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, on the ground, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of cash deposit of Rs. 95 lac (supra) in his another bank A/c. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts r.w the settled position of law, we are of the considered view, that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the A.O, vide the impugned Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, i.e, during the pendency of the other reassessment proceeding for the year under consideration, cannot be ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 19 sustained. We, thus, are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the validity of the reassessment proceedings, i.e, the proceedings that had culminated into the impugned assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016. 10. Apart from that, we find that the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Amritsar despite the aforesaid serious infirmity, wherein the AO, i.e, ITO, Ward-5(2), Amritsar had on the same day, i.e, 28.03.2016 approached hi for his sanction/approval for taking recourse to parallel reassessment proceedings against the assessee, i.e, for the same year and, he had in a most mechanical manner, on the same day, i.e, on 28.03.2016 granted his sanction/approval as contemplated in sub-section (1) of section 151 of the Act, i.e, for both the reassessment proceedings that were taken recourse to by the A.O. On a perusal of the sanction granted by the Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-II, Amritsar, we find that on both the occasions the same has been granted by him in a mechanical manner by simply scribbling, as under : (A). As regards reopening u/s 147 (for cash deposits of Rs. 43.47 lac) –Page 32 of APB: 12. Comments of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Amritsar that he is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Income Tax Yes – Satisfied Fit Case Sd/- ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 20 Officer that it is a fit case for issue u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Dated : 28/3 (R.I.S. GILL, IRS) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Amritsar (B). As regards reopening u/s 147 (for cash deposits of Rs. 95 lac) –Page 39 of APB: 12. Comments of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Amritsar that he is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Income Tax Officer that it is a fit case for issue u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Dated : Yes – Satisfied Fit Case Sd/- 28/3 (R.I.S. GILL, IRS) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Amritsar On a perusal of the aforesaid manner in which the approval/sanction had been granted by the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Amritsar, we may herein observe, that the same in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case before us, i.e., granting of sanction/approval by him to the parallel set of reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO, on the same date, and for the same year, therein clearly reveals the non-application of mind by him. Not only the initiation of parallel reassessment proceedings by the A.O is prohibited under law, but what is beyond our comprehension is that the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Amritsar, instead of correcting the A.O, had most casually granted his approval on both the instances, i.e, approved the parallel reassessment proceedings that were initiated by the A.O, on the same date, i.e, 28.03.2016, for the same assessment year. It may be so, that the ld. Pr. CIT too might have remained under a mistaken ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 21 belief as regards the validity of such parallel reassessment proceedings, but what disturbs us is the fact, that while sanctioning the issuance of the second Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, which as observed by hereinabove had culminated into the impugned assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016, there is no reference or mention about the approval/sanction that was already granted by him on the earlier occasion, and the same therein leads to serious doubts as regards application of mind by him at the time of grant of approval to the impugned reasons to believe. Considering the totality of the facts before us, we are of a strong conviction that the sanctioning authority, i.e, the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Amritsar had granted his sanction u/s 151 of the Act, in a mechanical manner, i.e, without application of mind to the facts of the case and the material available on record. 11. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are neither able to concur with the lower authorities as regards the validity of the reassessment order passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 27.12.2016, for the reason, that the same were initiated at a point of time when reassessment proceeding vide another Notice u/s 148, dated 29/03/2016, i.e, as regards the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 43.47 lac ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 22 (supra) already stood triggered and were pending at the relevant point of time and, had thereafter culminated into an assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated 08.11.2016; nor are able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the mechanical manner in which the approval under sub-section (1) of Sec. 151 of the Act had been granted by the approving authority, i.e., the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Amritsar, therefore, quash the impugned assessment order passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016. 12. As we have quashed the assessment framed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 147, dated 27.12.2016 for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and therein adjudicating the other contentions on the basis of which the Ld. AR had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO for framing the impugned assessment, as well as those that have been advanced by him as regards the merits of the additions so made, which, thus, are left open. The Grounds of appeal no. 1 to 11 are disposed off in terms of aforesaid observations. 13. The Ground of appeal no. 12 being general is dismissed as not pressed. ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 23 14. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of aforesaid observations. Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962, by placing the details on the notice board. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M.L. Meena) (Ravish Sood) Accountant Member Judicial Member Date: 21.02.2022 **GP/Sr./PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True copy By Order