Shri Tyrone Patrick Lemos, Vadodara V. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Vadodara

ITA 2414/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3059 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KETAN H SHAH
• Keywords: Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Deemed dividend; Competent authority; Reason to believe; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 2(22)(e); 13; 69; 148

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD ( CONVENED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ) BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2414/AHD/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS 28, GYANODAYA HOUSING SOCIETY, FATEHGUNJ, VADODARA - 390002 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE, VADODARA - 390007 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAPPL0277M ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KETAN H. SHAH, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DILEEP KUMAR, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 21/09/2020 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/11/2020 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, VADODARA (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 27 .09.2018 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 06.12.2016 PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CONCERNING AY 2013-14. ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 2 - 2. AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HEREI N HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS.1,80,60,000/- AS DEEMED DIVIDEND HAVING REGARD T O THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER : 1. THAT, THE LOWER AUTHORITY HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT, THE PROVISION OF 2(22) (E) IS APPLICABLE IN A CASE TO A PERSON WHO IS HOLDING NOT LESS THAT 10% OF VOTING POWER, IN OUR CASE THE AO HAS SIMPLY MADE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING 40% SHARE HOLDING AND THEREFORE, THE CONDITION MENTIONED IN THE SECTION IS NOT FULFILLED AND THERE FORE, ON MERITS, THE ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT, THE LOWER AUTHORITY HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT, EVEN AS PER THE BALANC E SHEET OF THE COMPANY FOR FY 2012-13, THERE IS NO SUCH ADVANCE AP PEARED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISION OF SEC. 2(22) (E) IS NOT APPLICABLE AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED . 4. THE PRAYER FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS N OTED ABOVE WHICH ARE NOT SET FORTH IN MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL ARE BEING ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION IN TERMS OF RULE 11 OF INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 OWING TO THE FACT THAT OBJECT IONS RAISED ARE PRIMARILY LEGAL IN NATURE TOWARDS APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS OF THE CAS E AND FOR SUCH OBJECTIONS, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE STATED TO BE EMA NATING FROM RECORDS. 5. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LEA RNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BROADLY VOICED OBJECTIONS BOTH LEGAL AS WE LL AS ON MERITS TO ASSAIL THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,80,60,000/- MADE BY THE AO BY RESORTING TO SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 6. AS REGARDS LEGAL OBJECTION ON LACK OF JURISDICTI ON TO ASSESS ALLEGED DEEMED INCOME UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT I N A CURRENT ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 3 - PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED AR ADVERTED TO THE REASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S.147 OF THE A CT ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AS SPE LT OUT IN THE REASONS ASSIGNED WHICH PURPORTEDLY GAVE RISE TO THE ALLEGED BELIEF THAT CHARGEABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. A NOTICE UNDER S.148 OF THE ACT WAS CONSEQUENTLY ISSU ED DATED 29.01.2016 FOR WHICH THE REASONS RECORDED UNDER S.1 48(2) OF THE ACT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR IMMEDIATE REFERENCE: ON VERIFICATION OF THE ITS DETAILS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WORTH RS.1,72,00,000/- ON 16.08.2012. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE IS IN CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS.4 7,539/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y . 2013-14 REFLECTING THIS INCOME. HENCE INCOME OFRS.1,72,47,539/- HAS ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT. THIS ESCAPEMENT IS BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS RELATED TO HIS I NCOME. 2. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, I HAVE REASON TO BE LIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF RS.1,72,47,539/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. I AM, THER EFORE, SATISFIED THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE AC T. 6.1 MAKING REFERENCE TO THE REASONS RECORDED (SUPRA ) BY AO UNDER S.148(2) OF THE ACT TO INVOKE JURISDICTION UNDER S. 147 OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT W HAT OPERATED IN THE MIND OF THE AO FOR ALLEGED ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WORTH RS. 1,72,00,000/- AND HAS ALSO EARNED CONTRACT RECEIPTS WORTH RS.47,5 39/- BUT HOWEVER HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME (ROI) FOR AY 2013-14 REFLECTING THE AFORESAID INCOME. IT WAS THUS ALLEGED FOR INITIATI NG ACTION UNDER S.147/S.148 OF THE ACT IS THAT INCOME OF RS.1,72,47 ,539/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT CONTRAC T RECEIPT BELOW THRESHOLD LIMIT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS CHARGEABLE IN COME PER SE. THE ONLY ISSUE THUS IS TAXABILITY OF INCOME EQUIVALENT TO PURCHASE PRICE OF PROPERTY. IN THE CONTEXT, THE LEARNED AR POINTED OUT THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER S.148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 4 - A RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.04.2016 DECLARING TOTAL IN COME OF RS.2,58,110/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS THEREAFTER COMPLE TED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDE R DATED 06.12.2016. WITH REFERENCE TO THE AFORESAID ASSESS MENT ORDER, IT WAS POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALTH OUGH THE ALLEGATION WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ESCAPEMENT EQUIVALENT TO PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WORTH RS.1,72,00,000/- (ASSESSAB LE UNDER S.69 OF THE ACT) AND CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS.47,539/- (AS SESSABLE UNDER S.28 OF THE ACT), NO ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON BO TH COUNTS IN TERMS OF RECORDED REASONS. THE AO HAS, IN THE INSTA NT CASE, TRAVERSED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE REASONS RECORDED AND INVOKED DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT W ITHOUT FINDING ANY ESCAPEMENT ON EITHER COUNTS ALLEGEDLY ESCAPED A S PER THE REASONS RECORDED. THE LEARNED AR THUS SUBMITTED TH AT THE AO HAS THUS ASSESSED AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT GENRE OF INCO ME OF FICTIONAL NATURE WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADDITION TOWARDS INCOME W HICH ALLEGEDLY ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AS NOTED IN THE REASONS RECORDED . SUCH ACTION OF THE AO IN EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT OF INCO ME UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADJUSTMENTS IN THE RE TURNED INCOME FOR THE REASONS FOR WHICH THE ACTION UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT WAS TAKEN IS WHOLLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE LEGAL PR OPOSITION WAS CITED THAT WHERE FOR THE GROUND ON WHICH ACTION UND ER S.147/S.148 OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED WERE NOT ACTED UPON, NO ADDIT IONS COULD BE MADE BY THE AO ON OTHER GROUNDS WHICH DID NOT FORM PART OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF REASSESSMENT. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS BEYOND THE PALE OF CONT ROVERSY ANYMORE. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT CIT V. MOHMED JUNED DADANI (2014) 355 ITR 172 (GUJ). 6.2 THE LEARNED AR NEXT SUBMITTED THAT THE APPROVAL IN THE INSTANT CASE FOR INITIATING ACTION UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT WAS OBTAINED FROM THE ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 5 - COMPETENT AUTHORITY I.E. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (JCIT) ON 25.01.2016 VIDE A CONSOLIDATED ORDER INVOLVING N INE CASES WHICH INTER ALIA INCLUDED THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS CONTEND ED THAT THE APPROVAL WAS COMBINEDLY GIVEN MECHANICALLY IN A SUMMARY MANNER FOR NINE CASES WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS NON-APPLI CATION OF MIND QUA THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE PER SE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPLICATION OF MIND, THE APPROVAL GR ANTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER S.151 OF THE ACT IS YET AGAIN NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THUS RENDERED THE ACTION UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT AS A SEQUEL TO SUCH NON- EST APPROVAL UNDER S.151 OF THE ACT, AS BAD IN LAW. 6.3 ADVERTING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AR ADVERTED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2( 22)(E) OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT, CONTEXTUALLY, PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WILL COME INTO MOTION ONLY WHERE THE PAYMEN T IS MADE BY THE LENDER COMPANY BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN TO TH E SHAREHOLDER HAVING HOLDING NOT LESS THAN 10% OF THE VOTING POW ER FOR THE PURPOSES OF PRESENT SITUATION WITHOUT GOING INTO OT HER TENETS OF THE PROVISIONS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT MERE HOLDING OF SHARES BEYOND THE THRESHOLD IS NOT ENOUGH UNLESS SUCH SHAREHOLDIN G ALSO BRINGS VOTING POWER BEYOND THE THRESHOLD LIMIT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ES TABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HOLDS VOTING POWER OF 10% OR MORE PER SE IN THE LENDER COMPANY. ON THE POINT WHEN INQUIRED BY THE BENCH, HOWEVER, IT WAS ADMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HOLDS EQUITY SHARES TO THE EXTENT OF 40% OF SHARES IN THE LENDER COMPANY. HENCE, WHILE DEALING WITH THE OTHER OBJEC TIONS SEPARATELY, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE AFORESAI D OBJECTION RAISED BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND. THE PRIMARY ONUS LAY UPON THE ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 6 - ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HO LD THE VOTING POWER BEYOND THE STIPULATED THRESHOLD LIMIT IN THE SAME PROPORTION AS EQUITY SHARES FOR WHICH BURDEN WAS SOUGHT TO BE WRONGLY SHIFTED UPON THE AO. WE THUS DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE A DDITIONAL GROUND RAISED ON THIS SCORE AND HENCE DISMISS THE SAME AT THIS STAGE ITSELF. 6.4 MOVING FURTHER ON MERITS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY T HE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE IN THE BOOKS LENDER COMPANY, NAMELY, ROTYCAN TURBOTECH PVT. LTD. WOULD SHOW THAT THE LENDER COMPANY HAD LENT MONEY AND SHOWN OU TSTANDING FROM THE ASSESSEE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13,94,42 7/- AND NO FRESH MONEY HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. AFTER THE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN CREDITS TOWARDS LA BOUR ETC. THE LENDER COMPANY OWES TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT O F RS.10,14,121/- AT THE END OF THE YEAR. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HUGE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,80,60,000/- I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IS NOT WAR RANTED EVEN ON MERITS WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY NOT RECEIV ED ANY MONEY FROM THE LENDER COMPANY DURING THE YEAR AT ALL AS P ER ITS OWN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ADDITION UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF THE A CT ACTUALLY REPRESENTS THE MONEY PAID BY THE LENDER COMPANY TO MR. ALDERIN RAPHEL FENANDIES AND NOT TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE BOOKS OF A LENDER COMPANY. THE LEARNED AR THEREAFTER SUBMITTE D THAT THE AO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT TO BE SATISFACTORY AND DID NOT INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT FOR TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ORIGINALLY ALLEGED IN THE REASONS RECORDED AND INSTEAD INVOKED ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF DEEMING NATURE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT TOTALLY DE HORSE THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE REASONS RECORDED. IT WAS THUS CONTENDED THAT THE A DDITIONS MADE UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IS ON AN ALTOGETHER DIF FERENT TANGENT AND ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 7 - IS NEITHER VALID IN LAW ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF SECTIO N 147 OF THE ACT NOR ON FACTS ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 7. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY DEFE NDED THE ACTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF THE AO & CIT(A). IN FURTHERANCE, THE LEARNED DR SUBMIT TED THAT THE ACTION UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED W HERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE ROI DESPITE TRANSACTION OF PURCHA SE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WORTH RS.1.72 CRORES WHICH PROVIDED PRIMA FACIE REASON TO BELIEVE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDE R S.148 OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS THE NON-APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE JCIT AS ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED DR POINTED OUT THAT THE REASONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S.148 OF THE ACT WAS RECORDED BY THE AO ON 09.12.2015 AND SAME WAS FORWA RDED TO THE JCIT FOR HER APPROPRIATE ENDORSEMENT. THE JCIT, IN TURN, HAS GRANTED APPROVAL ON 25.01.2016 I.E. AFTER A LAG OF NEARLY ONE AND HALF MONTHS ALBEIT BY WAY OF A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ALLEGATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE TOWARDS NON- APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE JCIT IS FAR FROM TRUE M ERELY ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONSOLIDATED APPROVAL MEMO. THE LEA RNED DR THEREAFTER REFERRED TO THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED B Y THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT WAS ALSO CHALLENGED BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT HOWEVER T HE GROUND WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A) AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FUR NISHED ANY SUBMISSIONS IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS THUS CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT ENTERTAIN TH E LEGAL GROUND WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS BYPASSED THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ON THE ISSUE. THE LEARNED DR NEXT CONTENDED THAT THE AO WAS WITHIN ITS STATUTORY RIGHT TO ASSESS INCOME UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO THE NOTICE UNDER S.148 OF THE ACT IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES EXISTING IN ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 8 - THE CASE. ADVERTING TO THE MERITS, IT WAS CONTENDE D THAT THE MONEY AGGREGATING TO RS.1,72,00,000/- WAS PAID BY THE LEN DER COMPANY TO ONE MR. ALDERIN RAPHEL FENANDIES BUT HOWEVER, THE P URCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WAS MADE BY THE SHAREHOLDER AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WOULD COME INTO PLAY NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE LENDER COMPANY HAS SHOWN THE ADVA NCES IN THE NAME OF MR. ALDERIN RAPHEL FENANDIES IN PLACE OF TH E SHAREHOLDER ASSESSEE HEREIN. THE LEARNED DR ACCORDINGLY SUBMIT TED THAT NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CALLED FOR. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. WE SHALL STRAIGHTWAY ADDRESS OURSELVES TO THE VALIDITY OF AS SUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS VALI DITY OF ADDITIONS MADE ON A GROUND ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT FROM THE GROU ND FOR WHICH REASONS TOWARDS ESCAPEMENT WAS RECORDED UNDER S. 14 8(2) OF THE ACT. 8.1 TO BEGIN WITH, IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT REASON TO BELIEVE IS THE SOURCE OF JURISDICTION AND FULCRUM OF S.147 OF THE ACT. SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS OF SPECIAL OR EXTRA ORDINARY NATURE. IT CREATES, DEFINES AND REGULATES THE RIGHTS OF AO TO REOPEN AND ASSESS THE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE INCOME UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT IS THUS SUBSTANTIVE IN NATURE. HEN CE, SEVERAL SAFEGUARDS HAVE BEEN INBUILT BY THE LEGISLATURE IN S. 147 FOR VARIED SITUATIONS TO PREVENT ITS ABUSE FROM THE IPSE DIXIT OF REVENUE. IF ANY OF THE INBUILT CONDITIONS ARE MISSING OR HAVE NOT B EEN ADHERED TO, THEN THE TAX AUTHORITY IS PRECLUDED FROM INVOKING T HE POWERS OF REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT. THE PROVISIONS OF S. 151 I S INTENDED TO PUT YET ANOTHER CHECK ON THE POWER OF THE AO SO THAT TH E ACTION OF AO IS IN KNOWLEDGE AND CONCURRENCE OF SENIOR INCOME TA X AUTHORITIES. ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 9 - 8.2 AS NOTED, SECTION 147 OF THE ACT CONFERS UPON T HE AO, A POWER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO AN ASSESSMENT WHERE ANY CHARGEABLE INCOME IS BELIEVED TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. EXP LANATION 2 TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT INTER ALIA ALSO DEEMS ESCAPEMENT OF CHARGEABLE INCOME WHERE NO ROI HAS BEEN FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPEC T OF WHICH HE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE ACT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX. HENCE, THE ESSENTIAL PRE -REQUISITE FOR INVOCATION OF SPHERE UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT IS THE PLAUSIBILITY OF ESCAPEMENT OF CHARGEABLE INCOME ON COGENT GROUNDS, BOTH IN THE EVENT OF RETURN HAVING BEEN FILED OR WHERE NO RETUR N HAS BEEN FILED. WHEN READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MAIN BODY OF PROV ISION, THE AO CAN COMPEL THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME UN DER S.147 OF THE ACT ONLY IN THE EVENT OF FORMATION OF BELIEF TOWARD S ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. WITHOUT HAVING COGENT REASONS OR MATERIAL F OR BELIEF TOWARDS ESCAPEMENT, EVEN A NON-FILER OF RETURN OF I NCOME CANNOT BE FORCED TO FILE A RETURN WITH THE AID OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE REMEDY TO REVENUE PROBABLY LIES IN S. 142(1) TO ASK THE NON FILERS TO FILE THEIR RETURN IN APPROPRIATE CASES WITH NO STRI NGENT REQUIREMENTS SIMILAR TO S. 147 ATTACHED. 8.3 IN THIS BACKDROP, WE FIRSTLY OBSERVE THAT REASO NS WERE RECORDED IN WRITING (SUPRA) WHICH FORMED THE BASIS FOR PURPORTED BELIEF TOWARDS ALLEGED ESCAPEMENT OF CHARGEABLE INC OME. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S.148 OF THE AC T, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSMENT WAS CARRIED OUT UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT AS A CONSE QUENCE OF ACTION UNDER S.147/S.148 OF THE ACT. AS PER THE REASONS R ECORDED, IT IS OSTENSIBLE THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT NO RETURN HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DESPITE PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WOR TH RS.1,72,00,000/- AND CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS.47,539/ -. THE AO THUS ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 10 - PRESUMED THAT INCOME EQUIVALENT TO AGGREGATE OF PUR CHASE PRICE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND CONTRACT RECEIPTS (BELOW THR ESHOLD LIMIT AND THUS NOT CHARGEABLE) HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AS A COROLLARY, THE AO QUESTIONED THE OMISSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO SOURCE O F INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY W AS HOWEVER NOT FOUND UNSATISFACTORY BY AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT UNDER S. 147 POSSIBLY ON THE ANVIL OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. NO ADDITIONS WERE THUS MADE FOR THE GROUNDS UNDERTAKEN BY THE AO TOWARDS FORMATION OF BELIEF. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE GROUND ON WHICH THE JURISDICTION UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT WAS E XERCISED HAVE NOT BEEN RECKONED AND ACTED UPON IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS AND NO ADDITIONS WERE CARRIED OUT FOR ANY OF SUCH GROUN DS RECORDED, THE AO COULD NOT MAKE ADDITIONS ON AN ALTOGETHER DIFFER ENT GROUND WHICH DID NOT FORM PART OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY HIM AS HELD BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT CIT V. MOHMED JUNED DADANI (2014) 355 ITR 172 (GUJ) AND OTHER JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS . 8.4 THE ADDITIONS IN THE INSTANT CASE WERE EVENTUAL LY MADE UNDER THE SHELTER OF DEEMING FICTION OF S. 2(22)(E) OF AC T WITHOUT QUESTIONING THE LEGITIMACY OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. SIGNIFICANTLY, NO RELEVANT MATERIAL WAS REFERRED TO BE IN PRIVY OF AO FOR APPLICABILITY OF UNIQUELY DIFFERENT SECTION 2(2 2)(E) OF THE ACT FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF REASONS REC ORDED. THE ALLEGED APPLICABILITY OF S. 2(22)(E) WERE DISCOVERE D AT A SUBSEQUENT STAGE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE CONDITIONS FOR APPLICABILITY OF S. 69 AND S. 2(22)(E) ARE POLE S APART AND TOTALLY DIS-SIMILAR IN LAW. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION O F THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE A O TO SUPPLEMENT THE REASONS AND MAKE ADDITIONS ON THE CONTOURS OF S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO WHISPER IN THE REASONS R ECORDED, WHERE NO ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN ULTIMATELY CARRIED OUT FOR T HE GROUNDS ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 11 - ENVISAGED FOR ALLEGED ESCAPEMENT IN THE REASONS REC ORDED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH C OURT, WHEN THE GROUND ON WHICH THE REOPENING ASSESSMENT IS BASED A ND NO ADDITIONS ARE MADE BY THE AO IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT O N THAT GROUND, HE CANNOT MAKE ASSESSMENT ON SOME OTHER GROUNDS WHI CH DID NOT FORM PART OF REASONS RECORDED BY HIM. 8.5 IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHERE THE AO HAS NOT PROCE EDED TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND INITIALLY RAISED THAT S OURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY REMAINS UNEXPLAINED, THE AO IS NOT ENTITLED IN LAW TO SUPPLEMENT THE REASONS SO RECORD ED AT THE SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF RE-ASSESSMENT AND MAKE ADDITION S, ALBEIT INVOLVING THE SAME SUM OF MONEY, ON A DIFFERENT GR OUND BY INVOKING DEEMING FICTIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF TH E ACT DE HORS THE CAUSE OF ACTION MANIFESTED UNDER S. 148(2) OF T HE ACT. THIS VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM PLETHORA OF DECISION INCLUD ING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN RAM BAI V. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 696 (SC); HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. (2004) 268 ITR 332 (BOM.), EAS T COAST COMMERCIAL CO. LTD. V. ITO (1981) 128 ITR 326 (CAL. ). HENCE, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS DEEMED INCOME UNDE R S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, BEING EXTRANEOUS TO REASONS RECORDED, R EQUIRES TO BE STRUCK DOWN ON THIS SCORE ITSELF. 9. ADVERTING FURTHER, THERE IS YET ANOTHER REASON T O IMPUGN THE ACTION OF AO. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE INSTANT CASE CAME INTO MOTION OW ING TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S.148 OF THE ACT FOR WHICH CERTAIN REASONS WERE RECORDED AS NOTED EARLIER. THE REASONS SO RECORDED WERE SENT BY AO FOR FORMATION OF SATISFACTION AND APPROVAL THEREO N BY JCIT UNDER S.151 OF THE ACT. WE NOTICE FROM THE APPROVAL MEMO DATED 25.01.2016 GIVEN BY THE JCIT WHICH NOTES THE NAME O F THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 12 - ALONGWITH MANY OTHER ASSESSEES AND GRANTS A CONSOLI DATED APPROVAL FOR ACTION UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT BY STATING YOUR PROPOSAL FOR REOPENING THE ABOVE CASES UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT IS HEREBY APPROVED . HENCE, AS CAN BE SEEN, ANY REFERENCE TO FORMATI ON OF SATISFACTION OF THE JCIT PRIOR TO APPROVAL, EVEN IN BRIEF, IS SORELY MISSING. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT THE ACCORD OF APPROVAL WITHOUT SATISFACTION IS A NULLITY IN THE EYES OF LA W. WHILE A COMBINED APPROVAL BY DESIGNATED AUTHORITY IS NOT A BAR, INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 151 OF THE ACT IS, HOWEVER, REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED QUA EACH CASE. 9.1 AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO NOTE T HAT SATISFACTION MEANS TO BE SATISFIED WITH STATE OR THINGS, MEANING THEREBY TO BE SATISFIED IN ONES OWN MIND. SATISFACTION IS ESSEN TIALLY A CONCLUSION OF MIND. THE WORD SATISFIED MEANS MAKE UP ITS M IND. THE ACT OF SATISFACTION IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT ACT. IT IS ASSOC IATED WITH EXISTENCE OF COGENT MATERIAL. THE CONDITION PRECEDENT IS SAT ISFIED. IT IS NOT MERE CONFIRMATION OF THE ACT OF THE AO BUT SOMETHIN G MORE. IT IS STATUTORY REQUIREMENT AND NOT A MERE ADMINISTRATIVE ACT THAT THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES VIZ. JCIT/ CIT ETC. NEED TO B E SATISFIED ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO. THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMPE TENT AUTHORITY ON THE REASONS RECORDED FOR INITIATION OF ACTION UNDER S.147/148 OF THE ACT PRECEDES AN APPROVAL. THE APPROVAL GRANTED WITH OUT EXPRESSLY SATISFYING HIMSELF CANNOT BE REGARDED AS VALID APPR OVAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 151 OF THE ACT. HENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPRESS SATISFACTION RECORDED BY JCIT WHILE GRANTIN G APPROVAL UNDER S.151 OF THE ACT, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ACTION OF THE A O UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE UPHELD. 9.2 THE JCIT/ADDL.CIT IS THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN THE INSTANT CASE IN WHOM THE JURISDICTION OR POWER IS REPOSED I N SECTION 151 OF ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 13 - THE ACT TO GRANT APPROVAL TO THE ACTION OF THE AO O N BEING SATISFIED ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE ACTION OF THE AO. THE AO CANNOT PROCEED TO EXERCISE THE POWERS TO REOPEN A C ASE IN EXCLUSION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AS EMBODIED IN SECTION 151 OF THE ACT. THE JCIT/ADDL. ACIT THUS M UST SATISFY THE MANDATE OF SECTION 151 OF THE ACT ON THE REGULARITY OF HIS ACTION. SECTION 151 OF THE ACT, IN EFFECT, IMPOSES A CHECK UPON THE POWER OF THE AO HAVING REGARD TO THE DRASTIC NATURE OF THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. 9.3 IN THIS BACKDROP, A CARDINAL QUESTION THAT ARIS ES IS WHETHER THE AO, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WOULD BE OUSTED IN LA W TO INITIATE THE IMPUGNED RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.147 OF T HE ACT ON THE BASIS OF CONSOLIDATED APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE SUPER IOR AUTHORITY UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF SECTION 151 OF THE ACT FOR SE VERAL ASSESSES IN A COMBINED APPROVAL MEMO DATED 25.01.2016 (I) WHEN SUCH MEMO IS STOICALLY SILENT ON DISSEMINATING ANY SATISFACTION WHATSOEVER FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPROVAL SO GRANTED AND WHEN (II) N O PROCESS FOR FORMATION OF PURPORTED SATISFACTION, IF ANY, TOWARD S ALLEGED REASONS TO BELIEVE OF AO QUA THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND DISCERNIBLE IN SUCH CONSOLIDATED APPROVAL. 9.4 COURTS HAVE TAKEN A NUANCED VIEW AND TIME AND A GAIN HELD THAT THE SATISFACTION OF THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES ARE NO T EMPTY FORMALITIES AND SUCH APPROVAL CANNOT BE GIVEN MECHANICALLY OR P ERFUNCTORILY WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE FACTS AND MATERI AL PLACED BEFORE HIM. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL VS. S. P. CHALIHA (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC) HAS SET ASIDE THE ACTION OF THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITY AS SATISFACTION WAS FOUND TO BE ARRIVED MECHANICALLY AND A MERE PRETENSE WHERE THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITY MERELY EXPRESSED HIS SATISFACTION AS YES ON THE N OTE FORWARDED TO ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 14 - HIM BY THE AO FOR REOPENING A CASE. APPLICATION OF MIND TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION HAS BEEN AGAIN EMPHASIZED IN MOHINDER SINGH MALIK VS. CCIT (2003) 132 TAXMAN 477 (P&H). SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED IN DWIJENDRA LAL BRAHMACHARI VS. NEW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS CO. LTD. (1978) 112 ITR 568 (CAL.) . THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. SHASHI KANT GARG V. CIT (2006) 285 ITR 158 (ALL.) HAS ALSO SIMILARLY EXPRESSED THAT REOPENING IS VOI D ON FAILURE TO OBTAIN SANCTION OF THE SUPERIOR AUTHORIT Y ACCORD WITH SECTION 151 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL INDIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. VS. ITO (201 1) 333 ITR 237 (DEL.) HAS ALSO REITERATED THAT THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITY RE QUIRES TO BE SATISFIED ON THE VALIDITY OF ACTION UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT WITH DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF AMAR LAL BAJAJ VS. ACIT ITA NO. 611/MUM/2004 ORDER DATED 24.07.2013 HAS ALSO OPINED THAT MERELY WRITING APPROVED IN THE SANCTIONED FORM WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION REND ERS THE REOPENING VOID. THE IDENTICAL VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRES SED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN ITO VS. N. C. CABLES LTD. ITA NO.4122/DEL/2009 ORDER DATED 22.10.2014 APPROVED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT (2017) 98 CCH 0018 (DEL.) AND DIRECT SALES PVT. LTD VS. ITO ITA NO. 3545/DEL/2010 ORDER DATED 25.02.2015. 9.5 IT IS TRUE THAT EXPRESSION SATISFIED PROVIDE S GREATER LATITUDE AND OBLIGATION CAST ON SUPERIOR AUTHORITY TOWARDS SATISFACTION UNDER S. 151 IS ON A RELATIVELY LOWER PEDESTAL VIS A VIS OBLIGATION CAST ON AO TOWARDS REASONS TO BELIEVE UNDER S. 14 7 OF THE ACT. NEVERTHELESS, A PROCESS OF REASONING FOR ARRIVING A T A SATISFACTION ON WHY APPROVED AND HOW INCOME IS ALLEGED TO BE ESCAPED IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL HE IS PRIVY TO BY THE JCIT, HOWSOEVER, IN BRIEF, IS EXPECTED BY THE COURT/ APPE LLATE AUTHORITY TO GAUGE THE APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE REASONS RECORD ED. A MERE ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 15 - FINDING TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PROPERTY MAY NOT NECESS ARILY GALVANISE THE SATISFACTION OF INVOLVEMENT OF UNEXPLAINED MONE Y IN ALL CASES UNIVERSALLY. FOR INSTANCE, THE INVESTMENT MADE CAN ARGUABLY BE OUT OF EXISTING SOURCE OR CAPITAL OF EARLIER YEARS OR O UT OF OTHER MEANS WHICH IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF CHARGEABLE INCOME. TH E DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONNOTATIONS REASONS TO BELIEVE AND REASO N TO SUSPECT ARE VITAL AND SUBSTANTIAL. THE SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY WA S UNDER SOME DUTY TO APPLY ITS MIND TO THE RELEVANCY OF MATERIAL BEFORE SANCTION OF PROCEEDINGS. IN THE LIGHT OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS NOTED ABOVE AND MANY MORE, A SUMMARY APPROVAL BY THE JCIT WITHOUT E XPRESSING ANY SATISFACTION ON PRESENCE OF UNDERLYING MATERIALS SH OWING ESCAPEMENT WHILE EXERCISING THE FUNCTIONS UNDER S.1 51 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED IN LAW. THIS APART, A CONSOL IDATED APPROVAL MEMO OF MULTIPLE ASSESSEE WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFA CTION QUA EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE RAISES SERIOUS DOUBT ON PLAUSIBILIT Y OF IMPLICIT SATISFACTION FOR EACH CASE AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTI ON 151 OF THE ACT. A NONDESCRIPT APPROVAL UNDER S. 151 WITHOUT REQUISI TE SATISFACTION IS A NULLITY. THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S. 147 I TSELF IS THUS VOID WHERE THE SANCTION IS NOT OBTAINED IN TERMS OF S. 1 51 OF THE ACT. HENCE, ON THIS GROUND ALSO, THE NOTICE UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT ITSELF GETS VITIATED. 10. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE MAY ADD THAT SECTION 147 O F THE ACT CONFERS JURISDICTION UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CARRYING OUT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LEGAL OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE VALIDITY OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER S.147 R.W.S. 151 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENT ADDITIONS CARRIED OUT UND ER S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 147 OF THE ACT STRIKES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND THEREFORE CAN BE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL EVEN IF NOT RAISED OR NOT ARGUE D DILIGENTLY ITA NO. 2414/AHD/18 [SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS VS. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 16 - BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE, THUS, DO NOT CON CUR WITH THE OBJECTIONS OF THE REVENUE ON THIS SCORE. 11. IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS, AS MAY BE APPRECIATED FROM ANY ANGLE, THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IN DEPARTURE WITH RECORDED REASONS, CANNOT BE SUSTAINE D IN THE CURRENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT WHERE NO ADDITIO NS TOWARDS RETUNED INCOME HAS BEEN MADE ON THE GROUNDS FOR WHI CH POWERS UNDER S. 147 WERE EXERCISED. WE THUS ARE NOT INCLI NED TO GO INTO THE REMAINING ASPECTS, IF ANY, CONCERNING MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS. THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.147/S.148 OF THE ACT ARE THUS Q UASHED AS VOID AB-INITIO AND THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IS HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMAR K EDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 20/11/2020 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20/11/2020