The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Gujarat Storages Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2302/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7971 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K PATEL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(1); 143(2); 147; 148

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH A BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2302/AHD/2016 ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 ITO, WARD-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD. VS. M/S.GUJARAT STORAGES P.LTD. 605, SAMEDH COMPLEX NR.ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM C.G. ROAD, AHMEDABAD. PAN : AABCG 7431 K / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI S.S. SHUKLA, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MEHUL K. PATEL, AR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 12/08/2021 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24/08/2021 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST OR DER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABAD DATED 27.6.2016 PASSED FOR A SSTT.YEAR 2007- 08. 2. THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THREE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL, BUT ITS SOLITARY GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 READ WI TH SECTION 143(3) ITA NO.2302/AHD/2016 2 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE GROUND THAT REOP ENING IS BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRO NICALLY ON 5.11.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.26,008/- WHICH WAS PRO CESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 11.1.2009. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AO, DCIT (INVESTIGATION) MUMBAI HAS TRANSMITTED CERTAIN INFO RMATION EXHIBITING THE FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS CONDUCTED VARIOUS SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS WHEREIN IT REVEALED THAT ONE SHRI PRAVEE N JAIN WAS PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND THE ASSESSEE IS THE BENEF ICIARY OF SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. ACCORDINGLY, HE RECORDED REAS ONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICE ON 27.3.2014. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY DATED 16.4.2014 SU BMITTING THEREIN THAT ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY IT BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. TH E LD.AO THEREAFTER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF TH E ACT. HE ULTIMATELY, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED ACC OMMODATION ENTRY WHICH ARE REFLECTED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AND A CCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,22,50,000/-. HE DETERMINED TAXAB LE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2,20,76,008/- AS AGAINST RS.26,008/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER RECORDING DETAILED REASONING HELD THAT THE AO HAS E RRED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. HE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY SATISFACTO RY REASONING FOR TAKING ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE LD .CIT(A) DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MERIT, THOUGH NOTED DOWN AR GUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT ULTIMATELY HELD THAT SINCE HE HAS QUA SHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, THER E IS NO NECESSITY TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE ON MERIT. THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS APPEAL HAS ITA NO.2302/AHD/2016 3 SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD T HE REOPENING AND OUGHT TO HAVE ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE ON MERIT. 5. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. FOR APPRECIATING THE ASPECT, WHETHER THE AO HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT OR NOT, IT I S IMPERATIVE UPON US TO TAKE NOTE OF REASONING ASSIGNED BY THE AO. SUCH REASONS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN PARA-2.5 OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER. IT READS AS UNDER: 'PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE. THE REASONS RECORDED FO R REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN YOUR CASE FOR THE A. Y 2007-08 IS AS UNDER:- 'IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A. Y. 2007-08 ON 15/11/2007. THE RETU RN OF INCOME WAS DULY PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. ON RECEIPT OF THE WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE DG( IT) (INV.), MUMBAI VIDE LETTER DATED 07/03/2014 AND FORWARDED BY THE DIT (I NV.), AHMEDABAD VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 12/03/2014, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT IN CASE OF CERTAIN COMPANIES, ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY SHRI PRAVEENKUMAR JAIN. ONE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, VIZ . GUJARAT STORAGE LIMITED BEARING PAN : AABCG 7431 K HAD ENTERED INTO BANK TR ANSACTIONS AS FOLLOWS, WHICH NEEDS FURTHER VERIFICATION: NAME OF BANK & BRANCH AMOUNT INVOLVED DATE OF TRANSACTION PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, OPERA HOUSE BRANCH, MUMBAI RS.15,00,000/- 30/05/2006 - DO- RS.10,00,000/- -DO- - DO- RS.10,00,000/- 20/05/2006 - DO- RS.7,00,000/- 03/06/2006 - DO- RS.8,00,000/- 05/06/2006 6. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THESE RE ASONS IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS, AND THEREA FTER DEALT THE ISSUE FROM DIFFERENT ANGLE. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ASSIGNED N UMBER REASONS FOR SATISFYING HIMSELF AS TO WHY THIS REOPENING CANNOT BE UPHELD. FOR THE ITA NO.2302/AHD/2016 4 SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE TAKE NOTE OF RELEVANT PART OF THE FINDING. IT READS AS UNDER: 2.7. THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MECHANICALLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE DGIT/DIT [INV.], MUMBAI AND THEREFORE THE SAME WAS BAD IN LAW IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF BANKI BIHARI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO. REOPENING ON THE BASI S OF REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT IS HELD TO BE INVALID BY T HE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ATUL JAIN (2008) 299 ITR 383 AND HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANUPAM KA POOR /(2008) 299 ITR 179. 2.8. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTICED THAT IN THE REASONS T HE A.O. HAS PREPARED TABLE CONSISTS OF THE DETAILS LIKE NAME OF BANK AND BRANC H, AMOUNT' INVOLVED AND DATE OF TRANSACTIONS AND THROUGH THIS REOPENING PRO CEEDINGS THE AO INTENDED TO VERIFY THOSE TRANSACTIONS. THIS HAS BEE~ CLEARLY ME NTIONED BY THE AO IN THE REASONS RECORDED WHICH HAS BEE-HIGHLIGHTED IN THE R EASONS RECORDED AND REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS. THUS, IT IS A SE TTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION AND FURTHER INQUIRIES T HE AO CANNOT REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.L 47 OF THE ACT. THUS, WHILE REOPENING THE CASE, THE AO WAS NOT HAVING ANY BELIEF THAT THE INCOME HA S ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THE REOPENING WAS JUST MADE TO MAKE SCRUTINY / VERI FICATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE AO WAS NOT OF THE SPECIFIC OPINION THAT INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND CARRIED OU T REOPENING MERELY TO MAKE ROVING INQUIRY IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION OF SH ARE APPLICATION. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS JUD GMENTS, IN SUPPORT OF THE ARGUMENT THAT NO REOPENING IS JUSTIFIED MERELY TO M AKE FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRY OF TRANSACTION, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE AO HA S NOT RELIED ON ANY NEW MATERIAL BASED ON WHICH HE CAN FORM A BELIEF THAT I NCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 2.8.1. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN HELD BY THE VARIOUS HON'B LE HIGH COURT OF WHICH GIST IS GIVEN AS UNDER:- THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF I NDUCTOTHERM INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN SLP NO.858 OF 2006 DATED 06/08/2012 HAS HELD THAT EVEN IN A CASE WHERE ONLY ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(1) IS PASSED, THE PO WER TO REOPEN CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHERE THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THA T INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND NOT MERELY TO SCRUTINIZE THE RETURN OR VERIFY THE EXPENDITURES. SIMILARLY, THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF BAKULBHAI RAMANLAL PATEL VS. ITO [2011] 56 DTR (GUJ.) 212 HAS HELD THA T THE REASONS RECORDED THAT THE AO FEELS THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES DETAILED INVESTIGATION AND FURTHER VERIFICATION, THUS, IT APPEARS THAT THE AO HAS REAS ON TO SUSPECT AND NOT REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT. THIS, HOWEVER, WAS NOT A VALID GROUND FOR INVOKING THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE I. T. ACT. SIMILARLY, THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF V. B. INVESTMENTS VS. DCIT IN SCA/8467/2003 DATED 12/06/2012 HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSMENT CAN BE REOPENED U/S. 147 OF THE I. T. AC T, IF AO IS OF THE BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND NOT TO CARRY OUT A ITA NO.2302/AHD/2016 5 FISHING INQUIRY TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT I NCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. . . 2.9. FURTHER IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT IN THE REASON S RECORDED THE AO HAS RECORDED THE REASONS FOR VERIFICATION OF THE BANK T RANSACTIONS BUT HE HAS NOWHERE FORM THE OPINION THAT THESE BANKING TRANSAC TIONS WERE RELATING TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT OR IN WHAT MANN ER THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES / UNACCOUNTED ENTRIES. TH US, THE REASONS RECORDED WERE VAGUE AND GENERAL IN NATURE. EVEN THE AO HAS N OT MENTIONED THE QUESTION AND ANSWERS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAVI NKUMAR JAIN ADMITTING OF PROVIDING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE APPELLAN T. NEITHER THE DATE OF HIS STATEMENTS, THE QUESTION/ANSWER NUMBERS NOR THE NAM E OF THE APPELLANT ETC. HAVE BEEN GIVEN SO AS TO CONNECT THE NEXUS OF THE A PPELLANT WITH SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING THERE CANNOT BE VAGUE AND FISHING INQUIRY. AO NEED TO PROVE THAT HOW THE TRANSACTIONS WERE BOGUS, WHEN ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE DULY ENTERED THROUGH BANK AND THERE WAS NO PROOF IN THE REASONS AS TO WHAT STATEMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN AND HOW IT WAS RELATED WITH THE TRANSACTIONS GIVEN AND HOW THOSE T RANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE. MERE DISBELIEVING ON THOSE BANKING TRANSAC TIONS WITHOUT ANY OTHER INFORMATION WILL NOT GIVE POWER TO THE AO TO REOPEN THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF SUCH ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT, THE REASONS RECORDED CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PROPER AND THEREFORE THE REOPENING ON THE BASIS OF SUCH REASON S IS LACKING IN ACCORDANCE TO VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THE HON'BLE COURTS IN THIS REGARD HAVE HELD THAT IN SUCH SITUATIONS WHEN THE REASONS ARE VAGUE AND NOT SPECIFIC WITHOUT THE SATISFACTION OF THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME THE SAME C ANNOT BE SAID TO BE SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ACCORDINGLY THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS HAVE HELD TO BE VOID. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWIN G JUDGEMENTS. . . .. 2.12. IN THE REASONS RECORDED, THE AO HAS SIMPLY ME NTIONED THAT HE HAS REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT BY FAILURE ON THE PART OF T HE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSE SSMENT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, THERE HAS BEEN NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE ANY MATERIAL FACT S AS ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH THE AO HIMS ELF HAVE ACCEPTED. ALL THE BANKING TRANSACTIONS WERE PROPERLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY AUDITED, BANK BALANCE WAS TALLIED AN D THERE WAS NOTHING MORE WHICH REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OR THE RETURN OF INCOME. MOREOVER THE AO'S OBSERVATION IN THE REASON RECORDE D THAT THE BANKING TRANSACTIONS NEEDED VERIFICATION ITSELF ESTABLISHES THAT HE WAS NOT FULLY SATISFIED ABOUT SUCH BANKING TRANSACTIONS BELONGING TO THE UN DISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT OR NOT? THUS, WITHOUT SUCH SATISFACTION, HE CANNOT RECORD THE REASONS TO BELIEVE AND STATE 'THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. THEREFORE, THERE WAS INHERENT DEFEC TS IN THE REASONS SO RECORDED AND DOES NOT STAND ON THE TEST OF LAW. 2.13 IT IS ALSO BE NOTICED THAT IN THE REASONS R ECORDED THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THE APPROVAL TAKEN FROM TH E HIGHER AUTHORITIES AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151 OF THE I.T. ACT W HICH WAS MANDATORILY TO BE MENTIONED IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE A.O BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148. ITA NO.2302/AHD/2016 6 THE HON'BLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DSJ COMMUNICATION LTD. VS. DCIT 222 TAXMAN 0129 HAS HELD THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO MENTION OF APPROVAL SOUGHT FROM THE HIGHER AUTHORITY ON THE TREASONS AS RECORDED BY THE A,O. TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ENTIRE INITIA TION HAS BEEN VITIATED AND BECOME BAD IN LAW. 7. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WOULD IN DICATE THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS MADE REFERENCE TO ROUGHLY MORE THAN 2 0 AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS, FOR BUTTRESSING HIMSELF AS TO WHY T HIS REOPENING CANNOT BE UPHELD. WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO R ECITE AND RECONCEPTUALIZE ALL THOSE DECISIONS, BECAUSE FIRSTL Y AN ADJUDICATOR OUGHT TO HAVE CONSTRUED THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY AN AO FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. WE HAVE INDEPENDENTLY PERUSED THE REASO NS EXTRACTED (SUPRA). A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE REASONS WOULD INDI CATE THAT IN FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS, THE LD.AO HAS MADE REFERENCE ABOUT THE DETAILS AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE HAS E-FILED RETURN, AND HOW THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED. IN THIRD PARA, HE HAS MADE REFERENCE TO THE WRITTEN IN STRUCTION FROM DGIT (INVESTIGATION) MUMBAI WHICH WAS FORWARDED BY THE DCIT(INVESTIGATION), AHMEDABAD TO HIM. IN THIS PAR AGRAPH, HE HAS MADE REFERENCE TO ONE SHRI PRAVEENKUMAR JAIN WHO WA S PROVIDING ENTRIES, AND THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE COMPANIES, WHO HAD ENTERED BANKING TRANSACTION WITH THEM. THEREAFTER, HE REPR ODUCED A FOLLOWING TRANSACTIONS, AND THEN ULTIMATELY CONCLUDED. AT TH E COST OF REPETITION, WE REPRODUCE THE SAME AS UNDER: NAME OF BANK & BRANCH AMOUNT INVOLVED DATE OF TRANSACTION PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, OPERA HOUSE BRANCH, MUMBAI RS.15,00,000/- 30/05/2006 - DO- RS.10,00,000/- -DO- - DO- RS.10,00,000/- 20/05/2006 - DO- RS.7,00,000/- 03/06/2006 - DO- RS.8,00,000/- 05/06/2006 I HAVE THEREFORE, REASON TO BELIEVE THAT BY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO' DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT / N EEDS DETAILED ITA NO.2302/AHD/2016 7 INVESTIGATIONS REGARDING THESE BANK ENTRIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961.' 8. NOW AS FAR AS BANKING TRANSACTIONS ARE CONCERNED , THESE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. THIS INFORMATION WAS G IVEN IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. ANY TRANSACTIONS SHOWN IN THE BANK STATE MENT COULD NEVER BE CONSTRUED PER SE AS AN ESCAPED INCOME. IT IS THE AO WHO HAS TO FORM HIS OPINION AS TO HOW THE TRANSACTION APPEARIN G IN THE BANK ACCOUNT COULD BE TREATED AS ESCAPED INCOME. THERE IS NO LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DGIT (INVESTIGATION) ESTABLISHING THE DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE INFORMATI ON VIS--VIS ESCAPED INCOME AVAILABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SIMPLY MADE REFERENCE TO THE INFORMATION AND THEN BELIEVED THAT SOME INCOME MUST HAVE BEEN ESCAPED, AND THEREFORE, A DETAILED INVEST IGATION REGARDING THE BANKING ENTRIES REQUIRES TO BE MADE. FOR THAT PURPOSE, HE SHOULD HAVE SELECTED THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT BY I SSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECT ION 147, HE HAS TO BE VERY SPECIFIC AS TO HOW FRESH INFORMATION CAME INTO HIS POSSESSION ESTABLISHING A LIVE-LINK BETWEEN THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME VIS--VIS THIS INFORMATION. NO SUCH THINGS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE R EASONS, THEREFORE, TO OUR MIND, THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE HAS APPRECIATED TH E FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE, AND RIGHTLY QUASHED REOPENING OF THE A SSESSMENT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24 TH AUGUST, 2021 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 24/08/2021