Somnath Saha, Kolkata V. ITO Ward-38(4), Paschim Medinipur

ITA 2339/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8371 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: K N KUNDU; MAHADEV GHOSH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Bogus purchase; Cost of acquisition; Tangible material; Accommodation entries; Competent authority; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Capital Gains
• Section: 142(1); 124(5); 13; 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA,...................................... ......................................APPELLANT C/O. MAHADEV GHOSH, ADVOCATE, BF-199, SALT LAKE CITY, SECTOR-1, KOLKATA-700064 [PAN:ASDPS9918G] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ .....................................RESPONDENT WARD-38(4), MIDNAPORE, AMRABATI,KERANITOLA, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR-721101 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI MAHADEV GHOSH, ADVOCATE AND SHRI K.N. KUNDU, A DVOCATE, FOR THE APPELLA NT SMT. RANU BISWAS, ADDL. CIT, FOR THE RESPONDE NT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : DECEMBER 10, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JANUARY 22, 2020 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11, KOLKATA DA TED 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE GIVING RISE TO TH IS APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO WAS EARLIER RESIDING IN CUTTACK. HE FILED HIS RETURNS OF INCOME REGULARLY UP TO A.Y. 2010-11 WITH THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK. HE DID NOT FILE HIS RETURNS OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011-12 TO 2015-16 AND THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2016-17 WAS FILED BY HIM WITH THE ADDRESS OF MIDNAPORE. DURING HIS STAY IN CUTTACK, T HE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A LAND IN CUTTACK FROM ONE MS. RABIYA KHA NUM OF BUXI BAZAR I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 2 ON 30.04.2008 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.29,30 ,000/-. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK FRO M THE INVESTIGATION WING OF BHUBANESWAR, THE SAID LAND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON 16.08.2011 TO ONE SHRI PAWAN KUMAR JAJODIA, PURIGHA T, CUTTACK FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,37,00,000/-. SINCE THE SAID S ALE OF LAND GAVE RISE TO A LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN LIABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2012-13 AND NO R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SAID YEAR WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DECLARING T HE SAID LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK HAD REASO N TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESE SE WAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HE ACCORDINGLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AFTER RECORDING THE REASON AND A NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED BY HIM ON 30.03.2018. MEANWHILE THE RETU RN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2016-17 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ADDRESS OF MIDNAPORE AND TAKING NOTE OF THE SAME, THE PAN JURISDICTION OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ITO, WARD-38(4), MIDNAPORE ON 15 .09.2018. THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO TRANSFER RED BY THE ITO, WARD- 2(3), CUTTACK TO THE ITO, WARD-38(4), MIDNAPORE ON 24.09.2018. KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK UNDER SECTION 148 ON 30.03.2018, A REMINDER WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD-38(4), MIDNAPORE SEEKING CO MPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THERE WAS, HOWEVER, NO RE SPONSE TO THE SAID REMINDER BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD-38(4), MIDNAPORE ON 12.11.2 018 FIXING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING ON 29.11.2018. THE SAID NOTICE ALSO REMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER LETTER DA TED 03.12.2018, THEREFORE, WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH A LETTER WAS FILED THROUGH SPEED POST ON 14.12.2018 B Y SHRI GOUR CHANDRA SAHA, FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE MAKING THE FOLLOWING S UBMISSION:- I, SRI GOUR CHANDRA SAHA, AM A RESIDENT OF VILL-NI SCHINDIPUR, GHATAL, WARD-04, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR, MY YOUNGER SON I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 3 SOMNATH SAHA WAS WORKMAN OF GOLD WORKMAN AT CUTTACK AND HAD BEEN SUPPLYING ORDER OF THE CUSTOMERS. IN 2010 HE HAD BOUGHT A LAND IN THE LANE OF CHUNAVATI AT CUTTACK T OWN. WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE PURCHASING OF LAND THE PEO PLE OF THAT AREA BEGAN TO TYRANNIZE OVER US. WE ARE PUZZLE D FOR THEIR TYRANNY, THEY PRESSED US TO LEAVE CUTTACK AND ALSO THREATENED TO MAKE US MURDER. I ALSO HAD BEEN LIVING WITH MY S ONS RESIDENT TWO YEARS. I HAD SEEN THEIR VIOLENCE IN MY OWN EYES. I HAD BEEN DISAPPOINTED FOR THEIR OPPRESSION & PRESSU RE. IN 2013 WE WERE COMPELLED TO LEAVE THE PLACE, CLOSING OUR BUSINESS AND LEAVING MY LANDED PROPERTY WITH DWELLI NG HOUSE OF CUTTACK. THIS REASON I HAD TO FACE A GREAT LOSS OF MY MONEY. DUE TO THIS CIRCUMSTANCES MY SON HAD LOST HIS MENTA L BALANCE. MY SON IS NOW UNDER THE TREATMENT OF PHYSICIAN OF C ALCUTTA. THE TREATMENT HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR FIVE YEARS. FOR THE GODS SAKE HE IS SOMEWHAT BETTER THAN BEFORE. RESPECTED SIR, YOU HAVE SENT A NOTICE OF TAXES, I H AVE ALREADY RECEIVED IT. AS FAR I KNOW AT THE END OF THE YEAR 2 008 HE BOUGHT A PLOT OF LAND AT CHUNABHATI, BUT WHAT WAS T HE VALUE OF THE LAND WAS QUITE UNKNOWN TO ME. BUT WHEN THE D ISCUSSION OF SELLING THE LAND HAD BEEN CONTINUING AFTER TORTU RING I WAS PRESENT THERE. IT WAS SETTLED RS. 50 LAKH(FIFTY LAK H ONLY) BY MALAY SANKAR ROY CHOWDHURY. THE SETTLEMENT WAS DONE BETWEEN MALAY SANKAR ROY CHOWDHURY AND PABAN KUMAR. BUT ACCORDING TO GOVT. RATE IN THAT AREA IT WAS ONE CRO RE AND THIRTY SEVEN LAKH. SIR AFTER BUYING THE LAND MY SON HAD SPENT ABOUT EIGHT LAKH AND MORE FOR BOUNDARY WALL AND SUI TABLE FOR LIVING OF A FAMILY. BUT AT THE TIME SELLING THE COS T OF THE LAND WITH BUILDING WAS FIXED ONLY RS. FIFTY LAKH. THE PU RCHASER FORCED MY SON TO SAY BEFORE THE REGISTRAR THAT HE H AD GOT THE SAID GOVT. RATE AS VALUE. AFTER SALE DEED REGISTERE D THE PURCHASER GAVE ONLY RS. FIFTEEN LAKH ONLY AND MALAY SANKAR ROY CHOWDHURY HAD TAKEN THAT REST AMOUNT. AFTER THA T HE GAVE US IN EIGHT INSTALMENTS IN THREE YEARS. NOW WE ARE IN SUCH A POSITION THAT WE CAN NOT START A BUSINESS WITHIN SIX YEARS. WE HAVE LOST EVERYTHING FOR MAINT AINING MY FAMILY I CM BAGGING FROM DOOR TO DOOR. NOW IT IS MY EARNEST PRAYER TO YOU HOW SHALL I SERVE OURSELVES FROM THIS HARD SITUATION. I THEREFORE REQUEST YOU TO RELEASE ME FORM THIS PRE SSURE, NOW WE HAVE BEEN LIVING WITH MUCH DIFFICULTY. WE ARE UN EDUCATED SO WE HAVE NO MEANS OF EARNINGS. NOW WE HAVE BEEN L IVING ONLY BY THE GRACE OF GOD. 3. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESESE, A LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON 14.12.2008 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR AND FURNISH THE DE TAILS OF EXPENSES I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 4 CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH BO UNDARY WALL AND BUILDING ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 19.12 .2018. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAID REQUIREMENT . MEANWHILE A LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 05.11.2018 T O SHRI PAWAN KUMAR JAJODIA FOR FURNISHING THE INFORMATION REGARDING TH E TRANSACTION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED A LETTER THROUGH SPEED POST FROM S HRI PAWAN KUMAR JAJODIA STATING THAT THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PROPERTY WAS PAID BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE IN CASH OUT OF THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH HIM ALONG WITH THE SAID LETTER, SHRI PAWAN KUMAR JAJODI A FILED THE STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME FOR A.Y. 2012-13 AND ALSO FURNISHED THE PHOTO COPIES OF THE RELEVANT SALE DEED DATED 16.08. 2011. 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM SHRI PAW AN KUMAR JAJODIA AND THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH HIS REQUIREMENT, THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETT ER DATED 14.12.2018 WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED TO COMPUTE THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARI SING FROM THE SALE OF THE LAND BY THE ASSESESE AT RS.97,48,024/- (SALE CO NSIDERATION OF RS.1,37,00,000/- MINUS INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION RS.39,51,975/-) AND THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN SO COMPUTED WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY HIM IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U NDER SECTION 144/147 OF THE ACT VIDE AN ORDER DATED 20.12.2018. 5. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 144/147 OF THE ACT, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CHALLENGING MAINLY THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. ONE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK H AD ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 MECHANICALLY WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND HE HAD SIMPLY RELIED ON THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) TO FORM THE REASON TO I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 5 BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THIS GROUND WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND REJECTING THE SAME, HE DISMISSED THIS GROUND FO R THE FOLLOWING REASON GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 8.1 TO 8.3 OF HIS IMPUGNED O RDER:- 8.1 A CLOSE LOOK AT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE LD . AO FOR REOPENING THE CASE CLEARLY MENTIONS THE VERIFICATIO NS MADE BY HIM. ONCE HE HAD THE INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION, HE WENT THROUGH THE DETAILS AND CROSS-CHECKED THE FACTS WIT H THE APPELLANT'S RETURN OF INCOME. HE FOUND THAT THE APP ELLANT HAD NOT FURNISHED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2012- 13. HE ALSO FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN O F INCOME RIGHT FROM THE AY 2011-12 TILL THE AY 2015-16. HE F ILED HIS RETURN FOR THE AY 2016-17 WITH HIS ADDRESS AT MIDNA PORE. I FIND THAT THE LD. AO ALSO COMPUTED THE LTCG INVOLVED IN THIS CASE BY CALCULATING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. SINCE HE ALREADY HAD THE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTION UNDERTAKEN BY TH E APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE SALE DEED, AND SINCE THE RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN FILED, THERE REMAINED NO FURTHER FACT TO BE ASCERTAINED IN THIS CASE. ALL THESE FACTS SHOW THAT THE ID. AO HAD APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND H AD MADE DUE DILIGENCE AS WAS REQUIRED OF HIM. THESE FACTS ALSO REVEAL THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TANGIBLE MATERIAL WITH THE ITO WARD 2(3), CUTTACK, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE COULD HAVE FORMED SUFFICIENT REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSME NT IN THIS CASE. 8.2 AT THE STAGE OF REOPENING A CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED TO CONDUCT A THROUGH INVESTIGATION. IN FACT, THE KIND OF FACT FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO MAKE DEPENDS UPON THE QUALITY OF FACTS AT HAND. IN THIS CASE, THE SALE DEED AND OTHER RELATED DETAILS LEFT NO DOU BT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TRANSACTED IN LAND. FURTHER, SINCE HE HAD NOT FILED A RETURN OF INCOME, THERE REMAINED NO DOUBT T HAT INCOME IN THE FORM OF LTCG HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE ITO WD. 2(3), CUTTACK HAD TANGIBLE MATERIA L BEFORE HIM AND HE HAD MADE VERIFICATIONS TO ARRIVE AT A CO NCLUSION THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE. TH EREFORE, IT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT TO STATE THAT THE LD. AO DID N OT APPLY HIS INDEPENDENT MIND BEFORE CONCLUDING THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON THIS CASE, OR THAT THERE WAS NO MATER IAL OF ANY SUBSTANCE BASE ON WHICH HE COULD HAVE FORMED HIS RE ASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE. 8.2.1 ON THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE, I REFER TO, AND D RAW SUPPORT FROM, THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND WOLLE N MILLS LTD. VS. ITO AND OTHERS [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) [199 9] 152 CTR 418 (SC) HELD THAT IN DETERMINING WHETHER COMMENCEM ENT OF I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 6 REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS VALID IT HAS ONLY TO B E SEEN WHETHER THERE WAS PRIMA FACIE SOME MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE DEPARTMENT COULD REOPEN THE CASE. THE SUF FICIENCY OR CORRECTNESS OF THE MATERIAL IS NOT A THING TO BE CO NSIDERED AT THIS STAGE. AT THE STAGE OF 'CONSIDERING' THE INFOR MATION, THE AO IS NOT REQUIRED TO 'PROVE' THAT THE FACTS ARE CORRE CT. IT IS THE AO'S SATISFACTION THAT IS NECESSARY AND THIS SATISF ACTION MUST BE BASED ON A 'TANGIBLE MATERIAL' AND NOT ON A VAGUE I NFORMATION OR A SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION OR OPINION. ALL THAT IS REQUIRED FOR REOPENING OF A CASE IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A 'TANG IBLE MATERIAL' ON RECORD AND THAT THIS 'TANGIBLE MATERIAL' SHOULD CONSTITUTE 'NEW FACT'. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF PR. CLT VS. PARAMOUNT CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. [2017] 79 TAXMA NN.COM 409 (DELHI) [2017] 329 ITR 444 (DELHI) HELD THAT IN FORMATION REGARDING BOGUS PURCHASE BY ASSESSEE RECEIVED BY TH E DRI FROM CCE WHICH WAS PASSED ON TO REVENUE AUTHORITIES WAS 'TANGIBLE MATERIAL OUTSIDE RECORD' TO INITIATE VALID REASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. SLP FILED AGAINST THIS DECISION WAS DI SMISSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. SIMILARLY, IN THIS CASE TOO, INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME T AX (INVESTIGATION), BHUBANESHWAR, WAS 'TANGIBLE MATERI AL OUTSIDE RECORD' AND THE LD. AO VALIDLY REOPENED THE PROCEED INGS U/S 148. 8.2.2 FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF PUSHPAK BULLION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE INVESTIGATIO N WING OF DEPARTMENT HAD DURING COURSE OF INVESTIGATION IN CA SE OF A THIRD PARTY FOUND THAT HE HAD INDULGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND BOGUS BILLS, AND ASSESSEE HAD MADE SIZEABLE PURCHASES FROM HIM, REOPENING NOTICE AGAIN ST ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED. 8.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERRED FACTS AND DECISIO NS, THIS ARGUMENT IS REJECTED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DI SMISSED. 6. ANOTHER GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE CHAL LENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER UNDER SECTION 144/147 OF THE ACT WAS THAT THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUT TACK, WHO ISSUED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 NEVER HAD THE JURISDICTION TO DO SO BECAUSE AT THE MATERIAL POINT OF TIME WHEN THE NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 148 WAS ISSUED, THE ASSESSEES ADDRESS HAD CHANGED FROM CUTTACK TO MIDNAPORE AND IT WAS THE ITO, WARD-38(4), MIDNAPORE, WHO HAD JURISDICTIO N OVER HIM. IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 THUS WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO DID N OT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER HIS CASE AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECT ION 147/148 WAS AB- I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 7 INITIO VOID. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE STAND OF TH E ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THIS ISSUE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CULLED OUT THE REL EVANT FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AS UNDER:- (A) THE APPELLANT OF CUTTACK AND HAD BEEN FILING H IS RETURN OF INCOME WITH THE ITO WARD 2(3), CUTTACK. (B) AFTER THE AY 2010-11, HE DID NOT FILE HIS RETUR N OF INCOME. (C) HIS NEXT RETURN OF INCOME (AFTER THE AY 2010-11 ) WAS FILED FOR THE AY 2016-17 WITH THE ADDRESS OF MIDNAP ORE. (D) DURING HIS STAY IN CUTTACK, HE HAD PURCHASED A LAND THERE AND LATER ON SOLD IT THERE ITSELF. (E) THE RESULTANT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WERE NOT DECLARED BY HIM AS HE DID NOT FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME. (F) AS HE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME EITHER FOR THE AYS, 2011-12, 2012-13 OR THE LATER AYS, THE ITO WAR D 2(3) DID NOT HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPELLANT'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS. THE APPELLANT DID NOT INFORM THE ITO WARD 2(3), NOR DID HE MOVE ANY APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF HIS CAS E TO MIDNAPORE. (G) AT THE MATERIAL TIME WHEN THE ITO WARD 2(3), CU TTACK RECEIVED INFORMATION ABOUT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GA INS EARNED BY THE APPELLANT, HE CONTINUED TO HOLD JURIS DICTION OVER THE PAN OF THE APPELLANT AS THE PAN HAD THE AP PELLANT'S ADDRESS AT CUTTACK WHICH WAS UNDER HIS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. (H) THE JURISDICTION WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ITO WAR D 38(4) MIDNAPORE ONLY WHEN THE PR. CIT PASSED AN ORDER U/S 127 OF THE ACT TO THIS EFFECT. AFTER THE JURISDICTION WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ITO WARD 38 (4), MIDNAPORE, THE CASE RECORDS WERE TRANSFERRED TO HIM BY THE ITO WARD 2(3) CUTTACK AND THE PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN AHEAD FROM THERE BY THE ITO WARD 38(4), MIDNAPORE. 7. AFTER SUMMARIZING THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE ASSE SSEES CASE AS ABOVE AND EXTRACTING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 20 AND SECTION 124 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) PROCEEDED TO DISCUSS AND DECIDE THIS ISSUE VIDE PAR AGRAPH NO. 9.3 TO 9.11 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- 9.3. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE REFERRED SECTION S AND THEIR PROVISIONS, THE INCOME TAX ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT LEAVES IT TO THE CBDT TO ASSIGN THE I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 8 SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS EITHER OWN ITS OWN M OTION OR THROUGH DELEGATION OF THIS POWER TO THE CHIEF COMMI SSIONER OR DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THUS, THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IS A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND IS NOT BORNE OUT OF THE STATUTE. THE STATUE ONLY PR OVIDES A BROADER OUT LINE IN SECTION 120(3). JURISDICTION OV ER A CASE CANNOT BE ASSUMED SUO-MOTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . IT IS CONFERRED ON HIM BY AN ORDER BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX OR THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX OR , AS THE CASE MAY BE, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. IN EACH REGION OR CHARGE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, T HERE ARE CLEAR ORDERS RELATED TO JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MANNING EACH AND EVERY WARD/ CIRCLE OR RANGE. IT IS THIS JURISDICTION ASSIGNED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE ASSUMES. THIS FACT IS FURTHER CLEAR IF THE FOLLOWING EXPRESS IONS IN THE ABOVE REFERRED SECTIONS ARE REFERRED TO: -124. (1) INCOME-TAX OFFICERS SHALL PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS IN RESPECT OF SUCH AREAS OR OF SUCH PERSO NS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR OF SUCH INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME AS THE COMMISSIONER MAY DIRECT. 124 (3) WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE AREA ASSIGNED TO H IM (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 9.4. AS PER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, ONE NEEDS TO UN DERSTAND AS TO WHEN AND HOW DOES THE AO ASSUME JURISDICTION OVE R A CASE WHEN THE APPELLANT SHIFTS FROM ONE TERRITORIAL JURI SDICTION TO ANOTHER. NATURALLY, JURISDICTION IN SUCH CASE IS NO T ASSUMED SUO-MOTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE IS AN ADMI NISTRATIVE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN FOR IT. ACCORDING TO THE PROCED URE, IF AN ASSESSEE MOVES FROM ONE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO ANOTHER, IDEALLY, HE SHOULD INFORM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO ORIGINALLY HELD JURISDICTION OVER HIS CASE, TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS AND TO TRANSFER HIS CASE TO THE AO IN THE NEW JURISDICTION . IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT INFORM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LATER CAN, OWN HIS OWN ACCORD, MOVE A PROPOSAL BEFORE THE PR. CIT FOR TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO THE NEW JURISDICTION. THE PR. CIT OFFERS OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO WHOSE JURISDICTION THE CASE IS PROPOSED TO BE TRANS FERRED, TO RAISE OBJECTIONS, IF ANY. IN A NORMAL SITUATION, WH EN THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE PR. CIT PASSES AN ORDER U/S 127 TRAN SFERRING THE CASE FROM THE AO IN HIS JURISDICTION TO THE AO IN A NOTHER JURISDICTION. 9.5. THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID, AS IS BEING URGED BY THE LD. AR, THAT THE ITO AT MIDNAPOR E AUTOMATICALLY HAD BECOME THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN BEFORE THE ORDER U/S 127 WAS PASSED AND THE JURISDICTION OVER THE PAN WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE ITO WARD 2(3), CUTTACK . 9.6. EVERY TAXPAYER IS ASSIGNED A JURISDICTIONAL A O BASED ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED BY THE TAXPAYER IN HIS PERMAN ENT I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 9 ACCOUNT NUMBER (PAN) RECORD AND HIS INCOME, TO ENAB LE CARRYING OUT THE ASSESSMENT IN A SMOOTH AND EFFICIE NT MANNER. ANY COMMUNICATION FROM INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO THE TAXPAYER AND FROM THE TAXPAYER TO THE AO HAPPENS ON LY THROUGH JURISDICTIONAL AO. THE JURISDICTIONAL AO HAS JURISD ICTION OVER THE PAN OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOR EXECUTING ANY FUNCT ION, AN ACCESS TO PAN IS REQUIRED. 9.7. HAVING DISCUSSED THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AN D THE ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES RELATED TO JURISDICTION, SOME MORE FACTS RELATED TO PAN AND JURISDICTION NEED TO BE DISCUSSE D. SINCE THE ID. AR HAD RAISED SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT JURISDICT ION, IN ORDER TO BRING MORE FACTS ON RECORD, THE LD. AO WAS DIREC TED TO CONDUCT FURTHER FACT FINDINGS AND SEND A REPORT IN RESPECT OF HISTORY OF RETURNS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE H ISTORY OF JURISDICTION OVER HIS PAN. THE LD. AO HAS REPORTED THAT: THE LD. AO'S REPORT: 9.7.A. JURISDICTION OVER PAN: AFTER TRANSFERRING PA N ON 15.09.2018,VIDE ORDER U/S 127(2) OF THE IT ACT, 196 1 DATED 14TH SEPTEMBER 2018 PASSED BY PR. CIT, CUTTAC K, ITO WARD 38(4), MIDNAPORE HOLDS THE JURISDICTION OV ER THE ASSESSEE FROM 15.09.2018 ONWARDS. BEFORE 15.09.2018, THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE WAS LYING WITH ITO, WD. 2(3), CUTTACK. 9.7.B. AS PER ITBA PAN JURISDICTION HISTORY DETAIL S, IT IS REVEALED THAT PAN JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 15.09.2018 HAD BEEN LYING WITH ITO, WARD 2(3 ), CUTTACK. CONSEQUENT UPON THE ORDER U/S 127 (1) OF T HE IT ACT, 1961 DATED 14TH SEPT. 2018 TO ITO WARD 38(4 ), MIDNAPORE, IT HAS BEEN LYING WITH ITO WARD 38 (4), MIDNAPORE. 9.7.C. RETURN OF INCOME: RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2011-12 AND 2012-13 HAD NOT BEEN -FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2009-10 AND 2010-11.HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.03.2010 AND 30.07.2010 RESPECTIVELY MENTIONING THE ADDRESS AS, 'GANGAMANDIR, BASAK BHAWAN, PO: BUXI BAZAR, DIST. CUTTACK (ORISSA) PIN 753001 WITH ITO, WARD 2 (3), CUTTACK. 9.8. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAD HIS ADDRESS AT CUTTAC K BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ITO WARD 2(3) WAS HOLDING JURISDICTION OVER HIS CASE. HE MOVED A PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER THE CASE TO T HE ITO WARD 38(4) MIDNAPORE THE MOMENT HE REALISED THAT THE APP ELLANT'S ADDRESS HAD CHANGED. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT INFORMED THE ITO WARD 2(3), CUTTACK ABOUT THE CHANGE OF HIS ADDRESS, NOR DID HE REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER HIS CASE. THEREFORE, THE EARLIEST TIME WHEN THE CHANGE OF HIS ADDRESS CAME B EFORE THE ITO WARD 2(3) CUTTACK, WAS WHEN HE WAS VERIFYING TH E FACTS INCORPORATED IN THE INFORMATION HE RECEIVED FROM TH E I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 10 INVESTIGATION WING. THEREAFTER, HE MOVED THE PROPOS AL FOR TRANSFER OF THIS CASE. BUT TILL SUCH TIME AS THE JU RISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT'S CASE WAS 'ASSIGNED' TO THE ITO WARD 38( 4), MIDNAPORE BY THE PR. CIT, CUTTACK, THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE REMAINED WITH THE ITO WARD 2(3), CUTTACK. THER EFORE, AT THE MATERIAL POINT OF TIME WHEN THE REASON FOR REOP ENING THE CASE WAS RECORDED AND THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED IT WAS THE ITO WARD 2(3), CUTTACK WHO HELD JURISDICTION OVER T HE APPELLANT'S CASE. 9.9. I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ID. AR WHEN HE ARGUES THAT THE ITO WARD 2(3) CUTTACK DID NOT HAVE JURISDI CTION OVER THE APPELLANT'S CASE AT THE TIME WHEN HE ISSUED A N OTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. I MAY ALSO ADD HERE THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT A COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE ACTION O F THE PR. CIT, YET ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HIS PARTICULAR, SINCE IT IS FOUND THAT TILL SUCH TIME AS THE ORDER U/S 127 WAS PASSED, THE ITO, WARD 2(3), CUTTACK HELD JURISDICTI ON OVER THE APPELLANT'S CASE, AS A COROLLARY, IT MAY ALSO BE IN FERRED THAT THE PR. CIT, CUTTACK WAS VERY MUCH WITHIN HIS JURISDICT ION TO HAVE PASSED THE ORDER U/S 127 OF THE ACT. 9.10. THERE IS YET ANOTHER PROVISION U/S 124 (5) W HICH I SHALL ADVERT TO NOW. THIS SECTION STATES AS UNDER: 124 (5) NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUES TION THE JURISDICTION OF AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER - (A) AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE HAS MADE A RETURN UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; (B) WHERE HE HAS MADE NO SUCH RETURN, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE NOTICE UNDER SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 139 OR UNDER SECTION 148 FOR THE MAKING OF THE RETURN. 9.11 IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE HIS R ETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THERE FORE, HIS OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE AN OBJECTION ON THE ISSUE OF J URISDICTION LAPSED AFTER THE TIME ALLOWED TO FILE A RETURN U/S 148 GOT OVER. I, THUS FIND, THE APPELLANT'S CASE IS SQUARELY COVE RED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION U/S 124(5) (B) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ID. AR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ARE REJECTED. 7.1. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THUS HELD THAT THE ITO, W ARD-2(3), CUTTACK WAS HOLDING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE WHEN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED BY HIM AND THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE REMAINED WITH THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK TILL SUCH TIME IT WAS I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 11 ASSIGNED TO THE ITO, WARD-38(4), MIDNAPORE BY THE P RINCIPAL CIT. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ISSUE AND UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF AS SESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 144/147 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE V IDE HIS APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30.09.2019. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. 8. ALTHOUGH AS MANY AS NINE GROUNDS ARE RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSE SSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 144/147 OF THE ACT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRESSED AND ARGUED TWO ISSUES, WHI CH RELATE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT. 9. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE WHILE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 144/147 OF THE AC IS THAT THE ITO, WA RD-2(3), CUTTACK, WHO ISSUED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 30.03.2018 H AD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREAD Y SHIFTED TO MIDNAPORE, WEST BENGAL BY THE TIME THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8 WAS ISSUED AND THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK WAS WELL AWARE OF THIS CHAN GE OF ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE CONTENDED THAT ITO, WARD-38(4), MIDNAP ORE HAD A JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE ON 30.03.2018 AND SINCE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK WHO WAS NOT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE ON 30. 03.2018 AND NOT BY THE ITO, WARD-38(4), MIDNAPORE, THERE WAS NO ISSUANCE O F VALID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SEC TION 147/148 WERE INVALID AB INITIO. HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 PLACED AT PAGE 40 OF THE PAPER BO OK TO POINT OUT THAT THE SAID NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD-2(3), C UTTACK AT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESESE IN MIDNAPORE, WEST BENGAL. HE CONTE NDED THAT IF THE I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 12 JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS WITH ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, HOW THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY HIM TO THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN MID NAPORE, WEST BENGAL. HE CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY SHI FTED FROM CUTTACK TO MIDNAPORE, WEST BENGAL AND THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTT ACK WAS AWARE OF THE SAME WHEN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSU ED BY HIM, THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE W AS NOT WITH ITO, WARD- 2(3), CUTTACK AND THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM UNDER SE CTION 148 TO THE ASSESSEE WAS INVALID IN THE EYES OF LAW. HE CONTEND ED THAT THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 WAS FILED BY THE ASSEESSEE ONLINE GIVING THE ADDRESS AT MIDNAPORE, WEST BENGAL AND THUS THE INTI MATION OF NEW ADDRESS WAS DULY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS D ULY ACKNOWLEDGED EVEN BY THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK BY MENTIONING T HE SAME IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148. HE CONTENDED THAT THE NOT ICE ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK UNDER SECTION 148 ON 30.03.2018 HAVING NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS INVALID A ND THERE BEING NO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY THE ITO, WARD-38 (4), MIDNAPORE, WHO HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE AT THE RE LEVANT TIME AND WHO FINALLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144/ 147, THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 WERE BAD-IN-LAW A ND THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 144/ 147 IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED BEING INVALID. 10. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPO RTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE UPHOLDI NG THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK UNDER SECTION 148 TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30.03.2018. SHE READ OUT AND RELIED ON THE OBSERVATIONS/FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARAGRAPH NO. 9.3 TO 9.11 IN SUPPORT OF TH E REVENUES CASE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER RESIDING IN CUTTACK AND NOT ONLY THE RETURNS OF INCOME UP TO 2010-11 WERE FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE WITH ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK, BUT EVEN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSE E AS GIVEN IN PAN WAS I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 13 THAT OF CUTTACK IN ORISSA. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE R ETURNS OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 AND 2013-14 WERE NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE INTIMATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS WAS NOT GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSEE TO THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK. SHE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE ADD RESS GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAN WAS NOT GOT CHANGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLINE F OR A.Y. 2016-17 WHEN HE ISSUED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. SHE CONTEND ED THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE THEREAFTER WA S TRANSFERRED BY THE CONCERNED PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK FROM ITO, WARD-2(3 ), CUTTACK TO ITO, WARD-38(4), MIDNAPORE VIDE AN ORDER DATED 14.09.201 8 PASSED UNDER SECTION 127(1) OF THE ACT AND THE PAN JURISDICTION WAS ALSO TRANSFERRED ON 15.09.2018. SHE CONTENDED THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE AS ON 30.03.2018 THUS WAS WITH ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK WHEN NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED BY HIM AND THE SAID NO TICE THUS WAS VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT VS.- M/S. I-VEN INTERACTIVE LIMITED (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8132 OF 2019 DATED OCTOBER 18, 2019), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT MERE MENTIONING OF NEW ADDRESS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY INTIMATING TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND WITHOUT GETTI NG PAN DATABASE CHANGED IS NOT ENOUGH AND SUFFICIENT. IT WAS HELD T HAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC INTIMATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WI TH RESPECT TO CHANGE IN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOUL D BE JUSTIFIED IN SENDING THE NOTICE AT THE AVAILABLE ADDRESS MENTION ED IN THE PAN DATABASE OF THE ASSESSEE, MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN TH E RETURN HAS BEEN FILED UNDER E-MODULE SCHEME. 11. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS GENERATED IN THE NEW ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AT MIDNAPORE, WEST BENGAL, ADDRESS IN THE PAN DATA MUST I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 14 HAVE BEEN CHANGED BY THE TIME THE NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 148 CAME TO BE ISSUED. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESS EE IN PAN DATABASE THUS WAS ALREADY CHANGED BY THE TIME NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 148 WAS ISSUED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE JURISDICTION OVER THE A SSESSEES CASE WAS ALSO TRANSFERRED FROM ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK TO THE ITO , WARD-38(4), MIDNAPORE. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND AL SO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN CHANGED TO MIDNAPORE, WEST BENGAL BEFORE THE I SSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 30.03.2018, THE ITO, WARD-2(3) , CUTTACK HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE AND THE NOTIC E ISSUED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 148 TO THE ASSESSEE WAS INVALID. HE HAS CON TENDED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE UNDER SECTION 147/148, THEREFORE, WERE INVALID AB INITIO AND THE ASSESSMEN T MADE UNDER SECTION 144/147 IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED BEING BAD-IN-LAW. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RESIDING IN CUTTACK EARLIER AND HIS RETURNS OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND 2010-11 WERE FILED B Y HIM WITH ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK ON 30.03.2010 AND 30.07.2010 RES PECTIVELY MENTIONING THE ADDRESS OF CUTTACK. THEREAFTER THE A SSESSEE DID NOT FILE HIS RETURNS OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011-12 TO 2015-16 A ND ALTHOUGH HE IS STATED TO BE SHIFTED TO MIDNAPORE, WEST BENGAL, THE INTIMATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ITO , WARD-2(3), CUTTACK. EVEN THE ADDRESS OF CUTTACK GIVEN IN PAN CARD REMAI NED UNCHANGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE PAN JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSES SEES CASE CONTINUED TO LIE WITH ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK. MEANWHILE THE PROPERTY PURCHASED IN CUTTACK BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.04.2008 FOR RS.29,30, 000/- CAME TO BE SOLD BY THE ASSESEE ON 16.08.2011 FOR RS.1,37,00,000/- A ND ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED REGARDING THE SAID TRANSACTION S, THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 15 OFFICER ENTERTAINED A BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTING LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AS TH ERE WAS NO RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2012-13. HE A CCORDINGLY RECORDED THE REASONS AND ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 O N 30.03.2018. IN BETWEEN, HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2016-17 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON LINE GIVING THE ADDRESS OF MIDNAPORE, WEST BENGA L AND TAKING NOTE OF THE SAME, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK ON 30.03.2018 TO THE SAID ADDRESS OF THE AS SESSEE. THEREAFTER ORDER UNDER SECTION 127(1) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO PASS ED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK ON 14.09.2018 TRANSFERRING THE JURISDI CTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE FROM ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK TO ITO , WARD-38(4), MIDNAPORE AND PAN JURISDICTION WAS ALSO TRANSFERRED ON 15.09.2018. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT HIS CHANGE OF ADDRESS FROM CUTTACK TO MIDNAPORE WAS NEVER INTIMATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ITO, WARD-2( 3), CUTTACK AND THERE WAS NO EFFORTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO CHANGE HIS P AN JURISDICTION OR TO TRANSFER HIS CASE FROM WARD-2(3), CUTTACK TO WARD-3 8(4), MIDNAPORE. 13. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, MUCH EMPHASIS HAS BEEN LAID BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE FACT THAT H IS CHANGE OF ADDRESS FROM CUTTACK TO MIDNAPORE WAS DULY INFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y. 2016-17 WHEREIN THE ADDRESS OF MIDNAPORE WAS CLEARLY GIVEN AND THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK WHILE ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 30.03.2018 WAS WELL AWARE OF THE NEW ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD . D.R. HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F PRINCIPAL CIT VS.- M/S. I-VEN INTERACTIVE LIMITED, MUMBAI (SUPRA), WHE REIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE CLEARLY HELD THAT A MERE MENTIONING OF THE NEW ADDRESS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY INTIMATING THE ASSES SING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND WITHOUT GETTING PA N DATABASE CHANGED, IS NOT ENOUGH AND SUFFICIENT. ELABORATING FURTHER H ONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC IN TIMATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE CHANGE IN ADD RESS, THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 16 OFFICER WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN SENDING THE NOTICE AT THE AVAILABLE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN PAN DATABASE OF THE ASSESSEE, MORE PAR TICULARLY WHEN THE RETURN HAS BEEN FILED UNDER E-MODULE SCHEME. KEEP ING IN VIEW THIS PROPOSITION PROPOUNDED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT, W E ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE THAT A MERE MENTIONING OF THE NEW ADDRESS IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME FILED SUBSEQUENTLY FOR A.Y. 2016-17 WAS ENOUGH AND SUFFICIENT TO TRANS FER JURISDICTION OVER HIS CASE FROM ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK FROM ITO, WAR D-38(4), MIDNAPORE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC INTIMATION GI VEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK WITH RESPECT TO CHANGE OF HIS ADDRESS AND EVEN THE PAN DATABASE HAD REMAINED UNCHANGED. THE J URISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ITO, WARD- 2(3), CUTTACK TO WARD-38(4), MIDNAPORE ONLY SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN ORDER UNDER SECTION 127(1) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL C IT, CUTTACK ON 14.09.2018 AND PAN DATABASE WAS ALSO CHANGED ON 15. 09.2018. PRIOR TO THAT, THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE CON TINUED TO LIE WITH ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK AND THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ITO , WARD-2(3), CUTTACK TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30.03.2018 WAS A VALID NOTICE. I N SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ON THIS ISSUE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. IT IS, HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT THE FACTS INVOLVED IN NONE OF THE SAID CASES ARE SIMILA R TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AND THE SAME, THEREFORE, ARE DISTIN GUISHABLE ON FACTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE FIND THAT THE RATIO OF THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. I-VEN INTERACTIVE LIMITED (SUPRA) IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. 14. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IT O UNDER SECTION 148 ON 30.03.2018. AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER BY RELYING ON THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 124, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE J URISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER, WHERE HE HAD FILED NO RETURN, AF TER THE EXPIRY OF THE I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 17 TIME ALLOWED BY THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 FOR FILING SUCH RETURN. MOREOVER, AS PER SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 124, THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH OVERRIDE OTHER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124 AS W ELL AS ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE ACT, EVERY AS SESSING OFFICER HAS ALL THE POWERS CONFERRED BY OR UNDER THE ACT ON AN ASSE SSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING OR RECEIV ED WITHIN THE AREA, IF ANY, OVER WHICH HE HAS BEEN WASTED HIS JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) O R SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120. 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK WAS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE ON 30.03.2018 WHEN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS IS SUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES CASE AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS A VALID NOTICE AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 16. THE SECOND CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AS MA DE BY THE ITO, WARD- 2(3), CUTTACK IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 MECHA NICALLY WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY RELIED ON THE INFORMAT ION SUPPLIED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) AND FORME D THE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE CONTENDED THAT THE BEL IEF OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE WAS BASED ON IMAGINARY STORY AND NOT ON FACTS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE REASONS RECORDED BY HIM. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND PROPERLY AND INDEPENDENTLY WHILE ARRIVING AT THE SA TISFACTION ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SIMPLY JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE ON THE I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 18 BASIS OF INVESTIGATION REPORT OF DIRECTORATE OF INC OME TAX (INVESTIGATION) AND REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT THUS WAS BASED ON THE B ORROWED SATISFACTION WITHOUT INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND. HE CONTEND ED THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DO NOT STAND TO T HE TEST OF JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND, THEREFORE, THE VERY ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION TO REASSESS THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF REASONS RECOR DED BY HIM COMPLETELY FAILS. 17. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY RELIE D ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN SUPPORT OF THE REV ENUES CASE ON THIS ISSUE. SHE CONTENDED THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING WAS CROSS-CHECKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER HAVING FOUND THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION SHOWING THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE SALE OF HIS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE REMAINED NO DOUBT THAT INCOME IN THE FORM OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SHE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS HAD TANGIBLE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM AND N ECESSARY VERIFICATION WAS DONE BY HIM TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION THAT INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . SHE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS HAD APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE AND AFTER MAKING DUE DILIGENCE AS WAS REQU IRED IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BELIEF WAS FORMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. RELYING ON THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LIMITED VS.- ITO (236 ITR 34), SHE CONTENDED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER COMMENCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS VALID, IT HAS ONLY TO BE SEEN WHETHER THERE IS PRIMA FACIE SOME MATERIAL ON THE B ASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. SHE CONTENDED THAT ALL THAT IS REQUIRED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A TANGIBLE MATERIAL ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH A PRIMA FACIE BELIEF ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CAN BE ENTERTAINED. I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 19 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THI S ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE STAND OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO REFER TO THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR R EOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, WHICH ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- .........INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATI ON WING, BHUBANESWAR SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SAHA HAD PURCHASED AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ON 30.04.2008 FOR RS.29,30,00 0/- AND SOLD THE SAME ON 16.08.2011 FOR RS.1,37,00,000/-AND AS SUCH, HE IS LIABLE TO PAY LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TOWARDS THE SAID TRANSACTION. ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION COLLECTED/ RECEIVED: ON GOI NG THROUGH THE SALE DEEDS OF THE BOTH THE TRANSACTION, IT IS F OUND THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE LAND FROM ONE MS RABIYA KHAN UM OF BUXI BAZAR ON A COST OF RS.29,30,000/- IN THE YEAR 2008- 09 AND SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SRI PAWAN KUMAR JAJODIA, PURIGHAT, CUTTACK WITH RS.1,37,00,000/- IN THE YEAR 2011-12. FURTHERMORE, IT WAS SEEN THAT ONE ACCOUNT IN BANK OF INDIA, NAYASARAK, CUTTA CK WAS OPENED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUYING THE PROPE RTY AND THE SAME WAS CLOSED AFTER THE TRANSACTION. ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE AO AS SEQUEL TO INFORMATION COLLECTED/RECEIVED: THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS BEEN CROSS- VERIFIED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN ITBA/AST/E-FILING PORTAL. THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE L AST RETURN I.E AY 2010-11 WAS RS.2,37,570/-. AS PER THE DATA O F HIS LATEST RETURN I.E FOR AY 2016-17, THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING HIS ADDRESS AS PASCHIM MEDINIPUR, KOLKATA. FINDINGS OF THE A.O : THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION OF S ELLING THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE F.Y 2011-12 TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,37,00,000/-. AS PER THE PURCHAS E DEED, IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE IMMOVA BLE PROPERTY DURING THE F. Y 2008-09 ON DATED 30.04.200 8 OF RS.29,30,000/- AND THE SAME IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS SOLD ON 16.08.2011 I,E F.Y 2011-12 OF RS.1,37,00,000/-. THI S TRANSACTION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY INVOLVES LONG TERM CAPITAL GA IN AND ATTRACTS CAPITAL GAIN ACCORDINGLY. THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THIS INSTANT CASE WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS:- THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION - RS. 1,37,00,000/-. LESS INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION- RS. 39,51,975/- TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN RS. 97 ,48,025/- (AS PER THE INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION THE PURCHASED COST OF ACQUISITION COMES TO RS.39,51,975/-). OUT OF THE AB OVE I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 20 TRANSACTION AND IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2012-13 UNDER THE HEAD OF LTCG. ON THE BASIS OF CALCULATION THE PURCHASED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION COMES TO RS.39,51,975/- SO THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.97,48,025/- UNDER LTCG (SALE PRICE RS (1,37,00,000--39,51,975)HAS TO BE SHOWN IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME. BUT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED INCOME TAX RETURN F OR THE A. Y 2011-12 AND A Y 2012-13. BASIS OF FORMING REASON TO BELIEVE AND DETAILS OF E SCAPEMENT OF INCOME: THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A FINANCIAL T RANSACTION OF SELLING AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WITH RS.1,37,00,000/- IN THE F. Y 2011-12 HAVING COST PRICE OF RS.29,30,000/-. AS PER THE CAPITAL GAIN CALCULATION, THERE WAS A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N OF RS.97,48,025/-OUT OF THE ABOVE TRANSACTION AND IT O UGHT TO HAVE BEEN FURNISHED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2 012-13 BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN AND AS SUCH T HE AMOUNT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CONTEXT, I HAVE THE REA SON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF RS.97,48,025/- CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT.......'. 19. A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT SPECIFIC INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, BHUBANESWAR THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD PURCHASED A IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR RS.29,30,000/- ON 30.04.2008 AND THE SAME WAS SOLD ON 16.08.2011 FOR RS.1,37,00,000/-. THE SAID I NFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF SALE DEEDS OF BOTH THE TRANSACTIONS AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SAME, IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN RISE TO A LONG-T ERM CAPITAL GAIN, WHICH WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E. A.Y. 2012-13. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ALSO COMPUTED SUCH LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT RS.97,48,025/- AND WHEN HE SOUGHT TO CROSS-VERIFY THE SAME WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH CONSTITUTE D TANGIBLE MATERIAL, WAS ANALYSED, VERIFIED AND CROSS-CHECKED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND AFTER SUCH ANALYSIS AND CROSS VERIFICATION, A BELIE F WAS FORMED BY HIM THAT I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 21 THIS SUBSTANTIAL LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD E SCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE ACCORDINGLY RECORDED THE REASONS GIVING THE DETAILS OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION RECEIVED BY HIM, ANALYSIS AND INQUIRIES MADE BY HIM TO CROSS- VERIFY THE SAID INFORMATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT AR RIVED AT ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ANALYSIS AND CROSS-VERIFICATION, WHICH ULTIMAT ELY FORMED THE BASIS OR REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE I N THE FORM OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION. IN OUR OPINION, THE TANGIBLE MATERIAL COMING TO HIS POSSES SION THUS WAS PROPERLY AND ADEQUATELY ANALYSED AND CROSS VERIFIED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER ARRIVING AT THE SATISFACTION BY APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMERGING FROM THE ANALYSIS AND CROSS VERIFICATION OF THE TANGIBLE MATERIAL, A BELIEF WAS FORMED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE A SSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THUS WAS REOPENED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AFTER ARRIVING AT HIS OWN SATISFACTION BY ANALYSING AND C ROSS-VERIFYING THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY HIM AND SINCE THE SAME IS C LEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE REASONS RECORDED BY HIM, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW AND THERE IS NO LEGAL INFIRMITY AS ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS I SSUE AND REJECT THE SAME. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FAILS AND IT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JANUARY 22, 2 020. SD/- SD/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT KOLKATA, THE 22 ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2020 I.T.A. NO. 2339/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 SOMNATH SAHA 22 COPIES TO : (1) SOMNATH SAHA, C/O. MAHADEV GHOSH, ADVOCATE, BF-199, SALT LAKE CITY, SECTOR-1, KOLKATA-700064 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-38(4), MIDNAPORE, AMRABATI,KERANITOLA, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR-721101 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11, KOLKAT A; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , KOLKATA , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.