Disrupted BOI Consisting of Sri. Dasappa, Sri. Ramachandrappa & Sri. D. Jairaj, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 273/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7075 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 1986-1987
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G KAMALADHAR HEARD ON
• Assessee Lawyers: K G ADARSHA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Gift; Question of law; Difference of opinion; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record; Capital receipt; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 142(1); 260A

Judgement Text

ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 1 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL. NO ITA NOS. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASST. YEAR 1 -7 ITA NOS. 273 TO 279/BANG/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF SHRI. DASAPPA, SHRI. D. RAMACHANDRAPPA AND SHRI. D. JAYARAJ PAN : ABMPD9168M 1986-87 TO 1992-93 8- 14 280/BANG/2010 TO 286/BANG/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. RAMACHANDRAPPA, SMT. D. INDRANI AND SMT. D. MEENAKSHI PAN : ABJPR9683E 1986-87 TO 1992-93 15- 21 287/BANG/2010 TO 293/BANG/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. RAMACHANDRAPPA, SMT. D. INDRANI AND SMT. D. MEENAKSHI PAN : ABJPR9683E 1986-87 TO 1992-93 22- 28 ITA NOS.294 TO 300/BANG/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. RAMACHANDRAPPA, SHRI. D. RAVIKUMAR AND SHRI. D. RAVIKUMAR PAN : ABJPR9683E 1986-87 TO 1992-93 29- 35 ITA NOS.301 TO 307/BANG/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. JAYARAJ, SHRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR AND SHRI. D. SOMASHEKHAR PAN : AEUPS7762M 1986-87 TO 1992-93 ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 2 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 36- 42 ITA NOS.308 TO 314/BANG/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF D. JAYARAJ, SMT. R. SAROJAMMA, R. SOMASHEKAR PAN : ABLPJ3394G 1986-87 TO 1992-93 43- 49 ITA NOS. 315 TO 321/BANG/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. JAYARAJ, SMT. R. SAROJAMMA AND SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI PAN : ABLPJ3394C 1986-87 TO 1992-93 50- 56 ITA NOS.322 TO 328/BANG/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF SMT. R. LAKSHMIDEVI, D. RAVIKUMAR, SMT. D. INDRANI PAN : ABMPD9168M 1986-87 TO 1992-93 57- 63 ITA NOS.329 TO 335/BANG/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF SMT. R. SAROJAMMA, SMT. D. MEENAKSHI, SMT. D. INDRANI PAN : AJPPS2187J 1986-87 TO 1992-93 64- 70 ITA NOS.336 TO 342/BANG/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSIST OF SRI D. VIJAYA KUMAR, D. RAVI KUMAR, D. DASAPPA, PAN : AAUPB0644B 1986-87 TO 1992-93 AOPS 71 TO 74 68/BANG/2003 TO 71/BANG/2003 AOP CONSISTING OF SMT. D. LAKSHMIDEVI, SHRI. D. RAVIKUMAR AND SMT. D. INDRANI PAN : GIR NO.A-699 1989-90 TO 1992-93 75 TO 78 72/BANG/2003 TO 75/BANG/2003 AOP CONSISTING OF SMT. SAROJAMMA, SMT. D. MEENAKSHI AND SMT. D. 1989-90 TO 1992-93 ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 3 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 INDRANI PAN : GIR NO.A-706 79 TO 82 76/BANG/2003 TO 79/BANG/2003 AOP CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. DASAPPA, SHRI. D. RAMACHANDRAPPA AND SHRI. D. JAYARAJ PAN : GIR NO.A-708 1989-90 TO 1992-93 83 80/BANG/2003 AOP CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. RAMACHANDRAPPA, SMT. D. INDRANI AND SMT. D. MEENAKSHI PAN : GIR NO.A-707 1989-90 84 TO 90 ITA NOS.81 TO 87/BANG/2003 AOP CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. RAMACHANDRAPPA, SMT. D. INDRANI AND SMT. D. MEENAKSHI PAN : GIR NO.A-707 1989-90 TO 1992-93 91- 94 ITA NOS.88 TO 91/BANG/2003 AOP CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. RAMACHANDRAPPA, SHRI. D. RAVINDRANATH AND SHRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR PAN : GIR NO.A-702 1989-90 TO 1992-93 95 TO 98 92/BANG/2003 TO 95/BANG/2003 AOP CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. JAYARAJ, SHRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR AND SHRI. D. SOMASHEKHAR PAN : GIR NO.A-703 1989-90 TO 1992-93 99 TO 96/BANG/2003 TO AOP CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. JAYARAJ, SMT. D. SAROJAMMA 1989-90 TO ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 4 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 102 99/BANG/2003 AND SHRI. SOMASHEKHAR PAN : GIR NO.A-704 1992-93 103 TO 106 100/BANG/2003 T0 103/BANG/2003 AOP CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. JAYARAJ, SMT. D. SAROJAMMA AND SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI PAN : GIR NO.A-701 1989-90 TO 1992-93 107 TO 109 1359/BANG/2002 TO 1361/BANG/2002 AOP CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, SHRI. D. RAVINDRANATH AND SHRI. D. DASAPPA PAN : GIR NO.A-705 1990-91 TO 1992-93 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. K. G. ADARSHA, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI. G. KAMALADHAR, STANDING COUNSEL HEARD ON : 10.11.2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 06.12.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE ARE IN ALL 109 APPEALS BELONGING TO THE DASA PPA GROUP. OUT OF THE 109 APPEALS, SL.NOS.1 TO 70 IN T HE CAUSE- TITLE ABOVE PERTAIN TO THE BOI GROUP AND THE REMAINING AP PEALS 71 TO 109 IN THE CAUSE TITLE ABOVE PERTAIN TO AOP GROUP. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE COMMON AND ARE IN RESPECT OF A GROUP AND ALSO ARISE OUT OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), DT.30/11.2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1986-87 TO 1992-93, ALL ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 5 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 THESE APPEALS ARE COMBINED AND A COMMON ORDER IS PA SSED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND CONVENIENCE. ITA NOS.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 BOI APPEALS : 1. AS THE FACTS ARE COMMON AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS A LSO COMMON, WE ARE REFERRING TO FACTS OF ONE CASE, NAME LY, BOI CONSISTING OF D. DASAPPA, D. RAMACHANDRAPPA AND D. JAIRAJ OUT OF ITA NOS. 273 TO 335/ BANG/2010 . 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A BOI CONSISTING OF D. DASAPPA. D. RAMACHANDRAPPA AND D. JAIARAJ. THE ASSESSEE HAS IN STITUTED THE APPEAL FOR A. Y. 1986-87 BEFORE THE CIT (A) AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 AND 260A OF THE ACT. AS PER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE EITHER A BOUT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE BOI UP TO ASST. YEARS 1983-84 A ND 1985-86. HOWEVER, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BO I CAME TO BE DISSOLVED ON 12.09.1993. ON THE SAID DATE, THE BOI WAS DISSOLVED AND THE FACT OF DISSOLUTION OF BOI WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ERSTWHILE AO BY LETTER DT.28.09.1993 FILED ON 04.10 .1993. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE BOI WAS DISSOLVED ON 12.09.1993 AND THE INTIMATION WAS GIVEN TO THE AO HAVING JURIS DICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 30.09.1993 REPORTING NIL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AN EXEMPTION INCOME IN PART IV OF THE RE TURN, ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 6 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 CONSISTING OF GIFT AND PRESENTATION RECEIVED, GOOD WILL AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S.14 8 OF THE ACT ON 28.03.1996 AND UPON THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE U/S.1 48 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER STATI NG THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.147 WAS BAD IN LAW AND FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED EARLIER BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148. 4. THE AO CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S 14 7 ON 05.03.1998 MAKING AN ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE EXE MPTION INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR AS FOLLOWS : SL. NO APPEAL NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE A. Y INCOME ASSESSED RS. 1 ITA.273/B/2010 DISRUPTED BOI OF D. DASAPPA, D. RAMACHANDRAPPA & D. JAIRAJ 1986-87 7,73,860 2 ITA.274/B/2010 -DO- 1987-88 14,41,425 3 ITA.275/B/2010 -DO- 1988-89 28,08,925 4 ITA.276/B/2010 -DO- 1989-90 39,34,002 5 ITA.277/B/2010 -DO- 1990-91 28,54,534 6 ITA.278/B/2010 -DO- 1991-92 80,68,600 7 ITA.279/B/2010 -DO- 1992-93 22,39,471 8 ITA.280/B/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF SHRI. D.RAMACHANDRAPP A, SMT. D. INDRANI AND SMT. D. MEENAKSHI PAN : ABJPR9683E 1986-87 8,62,911 ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 7 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 9 ITA.281/B/2010 -DO- 1987-88 13,98,925 10 ITA.282/B/2010 -DO- 1988-89 26,88,925 11 ITA.283/B/2010 -DO- 1989-90 39,34,002 12 ITA.284/B/2010 -DO- 1990-91 28,78,484 13 ITA.285/B/2010 -DO- 1991-92 72,92,500 14 ITA.286/B/2010 -DO- 1992-93 16,38,471 15 ITA.287/B/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. RAMACHANDRAPPA, SMT. D. INDRANI AND SMT. D. MEENAKSHI PAN : ABJPR9683E 1986-87 8,50,860 16 ITA.288/B/2010 -DO- 1987-88 14,18,920 17 ITA.289/B/2010 -DO- 1988-89 26,93,930 18 ITA.290/B/2010 -DO- 1989-90 36,66,102 19 ITA.291/B/2010 -DO- 1990-91 28,79,484 20 ITA.292/B/2010 -DO- 1991-92 58,13,100 21 ITA.293/B/2010 -DO- 1992-93 17,39,420 22 ITA.294/B/2010 DISRUPTED BOI C ONSISTING OF SHRI. D. RAMACHANDRAPPA, SHRI. D. RAVIKUMAR AND SHRI. D. RAVIKUMAR PAN : ABJPR9683E 1986-87 8,43,861 23 ITA.295/B/2010 -DO- 1987-88 14,23,925 24 ITA.296/B/2010 -DO- 1988-89 27,58,925 25 ITA.297/B/2010 -DO- 1989-90 37,03,002 26 ITA.298/B/2010 -DO- 1990-91 27,43,484 27 ITA.299/B/2010 -DO- 1991-92 71,59,545 28 ITA.300/B/2010 - DO- 1992-93 21,38,971 29 ITA.301/B/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF SHRI. D. JAYARAJ, SHRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR AND SHRI. 1986-87 8,48,861 ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 8 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 D. SOMASHEKHAR PAN : AEUPS7762M 30 ITA.302/B/2010 -DO- 1987-88 14,85,925 31 ITA.303/B/2010 -DO- 1988-89 28,63,925 32 ITA.304/B/2010 -DO- 1989-90 39,75,102 33 ITA.305/B/2010 -DO- 1990-91 35,78,534 34 ITA.306/B/2010 -DO- 1991-92 76,94,550 35 ITA.307/B/2010 -DO- 1992-93 20,38,471 36 ITA.308/B/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF D. JAYARAJ, SMT. R. SAROJAMMA, R. SOMASHEKAR PAN : ABLPJ3394G 1986-87 8,33,861 37 ITA.309/B/2010 -DO- 1987-88 14,70,925 38 ITA.310/B/2010 -DO- 1988-89 28,63,925 39 ITA.311/B/2010 -DO- 1989-90 39,62,102 40 ITA.312/B/2010 -DO- 1990-91 28,73,530 41 ITA.313/B/2010 -DO- 1991-92 64,99,204 42 ITA.314/B/2010 -DO- 1992-93 19,38,970 43 ITA.315/B/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF SMT. R. LAKSHMIDEVI, D. RAVIKUMAR, SMT. D. INDRANI PAN :ABMPD9168M 1986-87 8,38,802 44 ITA.316/B/2010 -DO- 1987-88 14,75,925 45 ITA.317/B/2010 -DO- 1988-89 29,13,930 46 ITA.318/B/2010 -DO- 1989-90 39,14,002 47 ITA.319/B/2010 -DO- 1990-91 32,99,534 48 ITA.320/B/2010 -DO- 1991-92 60,05,600 49 ITA.321/B/2010 -DO- 1992-93 22,39,071 50 ITA.322/B/2010 DISRUPTED BOI 1986-87 8,50,912 ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 9 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 CONSISTING OF SMT. R. LAKSHMIDEVI, D. RAVIKUMAR, SMT. D. INDRANI PAN:AJPPS2187J 51 ITA.323/B/2010 -DO- 1987-88 14,27,926 52 ITA.324/B/2010 -DO- 1988-89 27,68,426 53 ITA.325/B/2010 -DO- 1989-90 37,87,100 54 ITA.326/B/2010 -DO- 1990-91 29,24,480 55 ITA.327/B/2010 -DO- 1991-92 67,19,550 56 ITA.328/B/2010 -DO- 1992-93 20,88,921 57 ITA.329/B/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSISTING OF SMT. R. SAROJAMMA, SMT. D. MEENAKSHI, SMT. D. INDRANI PA N : AJPPS2187J 1986-87 8,50,912 58 ITA.323/B/2010 -DO- 1987-88 14,27,926 59 ITA.324/B/2010 -DO- 1988-89 27,68,426 60 ITA.325/B/2010 -DO- 1989-90 37,87,100 61 ITA.326/B/2010 -DO- 1990-91 29,24,480 62 ITA.327/B/2010 -DO- 1991-92 67,19,550 63 ITA.328/B/2010 -DO- 1992-93 20,88,921 64 ITA.336/B/2010 DISRUPTED BOI CONSIST OF SRI D. VIJAYA KUMAR, D. RAVI KUMAR, D. DASAPPA, PAN : AAUPB0644B 1986-87 8,72,911 65 ITA.337/B/2010 -DO- 1987-88 15,38,425 66 ITA.338/B/2010 -DO- 1988-89 29,69,425 67 ITA.339/B/2010 -DO- 1989-90 40,63,000 68 ITA.340/B/2010 -DO- 1990-91 33,74,484 69 ITA.341/B/2010 -DO- 1991-92 54,17,945 70 ITA.342/B/2010 -DO- 1992-93 20,88,921 ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 10 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) 5. BEFORE THE CIT (A) ASSESSEE FAILED TO GET ANY RELIE F. CONSEQUENTIALLY, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFO RE THE ITAT, CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE B OI OF D. DASAPPA, D. RAMACHANDRAPPA AND D. JAYARAJ. 6. THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE DECISION DATED 02.03.2001 IN ITA NO 622 TO 647 IN PARA 22 AND 23 HELD AS UNDER : 22. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SHRI VENKATESAN HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTICES UNDER 148 READ WITH 147 WAS NOT CORRECT. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES WERE PRESENT BEFORE THE AO AND THEREFORE , MAKING ASSESSMENTS UNDER SEC.144 WAS ALSO NOT CORRE CT. IF THE ASSESSEES WERE DISRUPTED, THEN THE QUESTION OF REMAINING PRESENT BEFORE THE AO DOES NOT ARISE AS T HEY ARE NOT IN EXISTENCE. THEY COULD NOT ALSO HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED. THE FACTS ARE CONTRARY, PARTICULARLY O N PERUSAL OF THE CIT(A)'S ORDER. 23. IT HAS BECOME NECESSARY TO CONSIDER ONE MORE POINT IN VIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI S.VENKATESAN THAT THE ASSESSMENTS MA DE BY THE AO ARE BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB-INITIO AND THEY SHOUL D BE CANCELLED. THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED THEIR RETURNS O F INCOME SHOWING DIFFERENT INCOMES FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDE R APPEALS VIZ., A.YS. 89-90, 90-91 AND 91-92 ARE FURNISHED BY THE CIT(A) IN A TABULAR FORM BY WAY OF ANNEXURE, WHICH HAS BECOME PART OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE'S CONTENTION IS ACCEPTED THAT THE AS SESSMENTS SHOULD BE CANCELLED, IT WOULD AMOUNT THAT EVEN THE ASSESSMENTS CANNOT BE MADE ON THE RETURNED INCOME A LSO. THIS BEING, INCORRECT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE RETUR NS ARE FILED FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT ON THE RETURNED INCOMES SUBJECT ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 11 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS AT LIBERTY TO MAKE THE ADDITIONS AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITIONS OF . GOODWILL AND GIFTS ARE MADE HEREIN. BESIDES THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO DECIDED THE OTHE R GROUNDS PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 7. SIMILARLY, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DT.20.07.200 1 BY A COMMON ORDER IN ITA NOS.632 TO 675/BANG/1998 IN PAR AS 8 TO 19, HELD AS UNDER: 8. THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE COVERED ON SO ME ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES AND ON SOME ISSUES IN FAVOU R OF THE DEPARTMENT BY THE COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I TA NOS.622 TO 672/BANG/1997 DATED 18.03.2001 IN THE CASE OF TH E ABOVE ASSESSEES AND THE FOLLOWING ISSUES ARISE OUT OF THE SE APPEALS : 9. SOME OF THESE ISSUES ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SOME ISSUES ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. SHRI S.VE N KATESAN, LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI CHADAGA, LEAR NED DR ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 12 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED BEFORE US. 10. WE HAVE PERUSED THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 18-3-2001. THESE ASSESSEES GOT DISRUPTED ON 1 2-9-1993. THE ASSESSEES RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF PUNJAB V. JALLANDAR VEGETABLE SYNDICATE RE PORTED IN 15 STC 326 AND THAT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF ELLIS C. REID V. CIT REPORTED IN 5 STC 100 FOR THE PROPOSITI ON THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSABLE PERSON ON THE DATE OF ASSESS MENT, THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON SUCH P ER SON IS BAD IN LAW. THIS DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ELLIS REID (SU PRA) HAS BEEN REFERRED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF G.E. NARAYANA (193 ITR 41) WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AT PAGE 47 AS UNDER: 'THE FORERUNNER TO THIS PRINCIPLE IS FOUND IN THE D ECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ELLIS C REID V CIT AIR 1931 BOM.333 (1930) 5 STC 100, WHEREIN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT, WHEN A PERSON DIED AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BUT BEFORE HIS INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR WAS ASSESSE D, HIS EXECUTOR WAS NOT LIABLE TO PAY THE TAX. AFTER THIS DECISION, SECTION 24B WAS INTRODUCED IN THE EARLIER INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922 (SIMILAR TO THE PRESENT SECTIO N 159). THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIM E OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY IS A MATT ER WHICH HAS BEEN RECOGNISED IN ALL THESE DECISIONS AN D IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN EXISTENCE, THERE SHOULD BE A SPECIFIC PROVISION TO ASSESS THE SAID INCOME WHICH WAS LIABL E TO BE TAXED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. T HE SAME LOGIC GOVERNS THE WEALTH LAX ACT ALSO' THE ABOVE PASSAGE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARN ATAKA WAS REITERATED IN THE LATER DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN T.GOVINDAPPA SETTY V. ITO (231 ITR 892 AT PAGE 9 02). THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION TO ASSES S A DISSOLVED BOI, UNLIKE IN THE CASE OF A PERSON WHO D IES WITHOUT LEAVING A WILL SEC.159(1), BY LEAVING A WIL L - ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 13 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 SEC.171, DISRUPTED AOP - SEC.177, COMPANY UNDER LIQUIDATION - SEC. 178 AND DISSOLVED FIRM SEC. 189 , THE ASSESSMENTS MADE ON THE ASSESSEES REQUIRED TO BE AN NULLED. 11. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THE ARGUMENTS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE S RELYING ON THE DECISION OF T GOVINDAPPA SETTY (SUPRA) IS ON THE POINT OF DISRUPTION OF THE HUF AND IN THESE APPEALS, THER E WAS NO DISRUPTION OF HUF AND THAT THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES' CASES. ARE NOT ON PAR WITH THE FACTS BEF ORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IN PARA 2 1 OF THE ORDER (SUPRA) THAT THE BOI WAS IN EXISTENCE TILL 12 -9-1993 WHEN IT WAS DISRUPTED AND THE CAPITAL WAS DISTRIBUT ED AMONG THE MEMBERS AND INTIMATION OF DISRUPTION WAS GIVEN TO THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED IN THE SE APPEALS ARE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF DISRUPTION, THE DE CISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN T.GOVINDAPPA SETTY (SU PRA) DOES NOT IN ANY WAY HELP THE ASSESSEE. 12 . SHRI S.VENKATESAN, ARGUED THAT ALTHOUGH THE 'OLS ARE NOT HUF, THE PRINCIPLE EN NUNCIATED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF JALLANDAR VEGETBLE SYNDICATE (SUPRA) AND THE BOMBAY HIGH COU RT IN ELLIS REID (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN T.GOVINDAPPA & SONS (SUPRA) IS THAT THE ASSESSABLE ENTITY MUST BE IN EXISTENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE. THEREFORE, IT WAS CONTENDED THA T THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS PER INCURIAM ON THIS POINT AS IT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RATIO OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN JALLANDAR VEGETABLE SYNDICATE (SUPRA), BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ELLIS REID (SUP RA ) AND KARNALAKA HIGH COURT IN T.GOVINDAPPA SETTY (SU PRA) AND IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATER, THE POINT SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. NORMALLY THE TRIBUNAL SH OULD FOLLOW THE ORDER OF ANOTHER BENCH ON THE SAME FACTS UNLESS, AFTER PRONOUNCING DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL, THERE IS AN ALTERATION IN LAW BROUGHT ABOUT BY AN AMENDMENT OF THE LAW OR BY THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OR SUPREME COURT. THE EARLIER BENCH CONSIDERE D ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 14 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 THESE VERY DECISIONS CITED BY THE ID. AR AND CAME T O A CERTAIN CONSCIOUS DECISION AND THEREFORE, THE DECIS ION OF THE EARLIER BENCH SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY THIS BENCH FOR JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE EARL IER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE UPHOLD THE VALIDITY OF TH E ASSESSMENTS MADE ON THE DISRUPTED BOIS. 13. THE NEXT ISSUE IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE REO PENING. IT IS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES THAT THE RE- OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS IS BAD IN LAW. AGAIN, TH E VALIDITY OF THE RE-OPENING WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUN AL IN THE AFORESAID ORDER. IT WAS CONTENDED BY SHRI VENKA TESAN THAT ALTHOUGH THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF T HE REOPENIN G RE AS ONS THAT ARE MANDATORILY REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARIN G OF THE ASSESSEES ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECTED THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TO PRODUCE THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCED A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORD ER SHEET WHERE THE REASONS RECORDED ARE AS UNDER: 'THE ASSESSEES HAVE IZOW FILED RETURNS OF INCOME SHOWING SUBSTANTIAL RECEIPTS FROM 'GIFTS AND PRESENTATIONS' AND 'GOODWILL WITHOUT FURNISHING ANY DETAILS LIKE NAME AND ADDRESSES OF THE DONORS, ETC. I BELIEVE THESE AMOUNTS ARE ACTUALLY THE ASSESSEES' I NCOME WHICH IS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX. THEREFORE, NOTICE U/ S. 148 R.W.S. 147 MAY BE ISSUED.' 14. SHRI VENKATESAN CONTENDED THAT THE REASONS RECO RDED BY THE AO DO NOT REVEAL THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHOSE CASE THE REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED, DATE OF RECORDING THE R EASONS, DESIGNATION OF THE OFFICER RECORDING THE REASONS AN D ASSESSMENT YEAR TO WHICH THE RECORDED REASONS RELAT E ARE NOT MENTIONED. AT THIS STAGE, WE ASKED THE LEARNED DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AS TO WHETHER ANY SANCTION, AS CONTE MPLATED U/S.151 FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE ULS.148 OF THE ACT, AFT ER 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, HAS BEEN OBTAINED B EFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLE ADED FOR ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 15 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 SOME TIME AND PRODUCED A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE AC IT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-IV, BANGALORE, DATED 28-3-1996 WHERE SANCTIO N WAS GIVEN BY THE DCIT TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENTS FOR AS SESSMENT YEARS 1985-86 TO 1989-90 IN THE CASE OF INCOME-TAX AND 1985-86 TO 1990-91 IN THE CASE OF WEALTH-TAX HE ALSO PRODUC ED A NOTE ON BOIS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER D.27-3-1996 TO THE DCIT SEEKING APPROVAL. IN THIS LETTER, HE ONLY DELINEATE D THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME OF THE EXTRACTS: 'THESE AMOUNTS OF CASH HAD APPARENTLY BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE WITH THE BOIS WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING SUCH CASH IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE DASAPPA GROUP AND CERTAIN FIRMS AS AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE HOIS. WE HAD MADE AN ATTEMPT TO ASSESS SUCH CASH CREDITS IN THE CONCERNED INDIVIDUAL/FIRMS HANDS- SUBSTANTIALLY AND THE,, PROTECTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF THE ROTS. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSMENT FOR AY 92-93 WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE BOIS ON 10.3.96 THE ASSESSEES TOOK UP THE ISSUE BEFORE THE CJT(A) AND CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL/FIRMS AND SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENTS IN T HE NAMES OF THE BOIS TO MAKE THEM AFRESH. WHILE DOING SO, THE CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSABILITY OF THE AMOUNTS BROUGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUA L FIRM S THROUGH THE MEDIA OF BO I S CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE BOIS. WE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT AGAINST THE CIT(A) 'S ORDERS IN THE CASES OF THE INDIVIDUALS AND FIRMS AS WELL AS IN THE CASES O F THE BOIS. IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS NAMELY A. YS 89-90, 90 - 91 AND 1991-92 IN THE HANDS OF THE BOIS, NOTICES U/S. 148 HAVE ALREADY BEEN ISSUED. SOME OF THESE ASSESSMENTS ARE TIME BARRING BY 31 / 03 / 96. SOME OF THE REMAINING ASSESSMENTS ARE TIME-BARRING 31 / 03/97. WE HAVE NOT HOWEVER, ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 148 IN RE SPECT OF THE OTHER YEARS. ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 16 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 FROM THE FACTS GATHERED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS CONSIDERED THAT THE AMOUNT BROUGHT INTO INDIVIDUAL/FIRMS HANDS THROUGH THE MEDIA OF BOIS ARE ASSESSABLE AS CASH CREDITS. THE BOIS ALSO COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT HOW THEY HAD EARNED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT IN THE FORM OF GIFTS AND GOODWILL. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED OTHERWISE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 85-86 TO 95-96 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 10 BO I S REFERRED TO ABOVE, EXCEPT THE CASES IN RESPECT OF WHICH PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 HAVE ALREADY BEEN INITIATED FOR THE A. YS. 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 AND THE A. Y. 1992-93 IN RESPECT OF WHICH RETURNS HAVE ALREADY BEEN FILED AND ACTIONS TAKEN THEREON. ON THE BASIS OF THE FAC TS IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THESE BOIS, THEY ARE ALSO LIABLE TO WEALTH-LAX IN RESPECT OF ASSESSME NTS YEAR 85-86 AND ONWARDS. NO SUCH RETURNS HAVE BEEN FILED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HAVE ALSO , REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE NET WEALTH ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THESE BOIS HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR A. YS 85-86 TO 95-96. I, THEREFORE, PROPOSE TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I. T ACT, IN THE CASES OF ALL THE 10 BOIS FOR A. YS 85-8 6 TO 94-95 EXCEPT FOR THE A. YS 89-90, 90-91 AND 1991-92 IN RESPECT OF WHICH NOTICES HAVE ALREADY 'BEEN FILED AS FAR AS A. Y. 95-96 IS CONCERNED, I PROPOSE TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE I. T ACT.' 15. SHRI CHADAGA, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT THE ABOVE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS REASONS RECORDED AS AGAINST THE REASO NS RECORDED AND PRODUCED BEFORE US EARLIER, WHICH WE H AVE ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 17 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 MENTIONED ABOVE. SHRI VENKATESAN, ON THE OTHER HAND , CONTENDED THAT NO REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND WH AT WAS SO RECORDED DO NOT BEAR THE DATE, NAME OF THE ASSES SEES, ASSESSMENT YEARS, DESIGNATION OF THE OFFICER AND WH AT ARE THE MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE OFFICER WAS INDUCED, TO HAVE THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSME NT. EVEN IN THE NOTES TO THE DCIT SEEKING FOR APPROVAL, HE H AS ONLY SET OUT THE. FACTS AND HAS NOT RECORDED THE REASONS AS HE INTENDED TO MAKE A PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT AND AS SUCH THE REA SONS TO BELIEVE ARE NOT BONA FIDE. AT ANY RATE, HAVING REGA RD TO THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT I N VIJAYALAKSHMI INDUSTRIES REPORTED IN 155 ITR 748, T HE NOTES PREPARED FOR THE HIGHER AUTHORITY CONTEMPORANEOUSLY CANNOT BE ELEVATED TO THE MANDATO RY REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING THE REASONS. 16. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYALAKSHMI INDUSTRIES (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS MADE ULS.47 A RE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. T43(2) HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH- EVEN IF A DIFFERENT VIEW IS TAKEN, THEN ALSO THE REASONS RECORDED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH ARE PRODUCED INITIALLY READ WITH THE. LETTERS TO THE DCIT SEEKING APPROVAL DO NOT MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO ANY VALID REASON THAT HAS LED THE ASSESSING OFFICER T& ENTERTAIN A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME HAS ES CAPED ASSESSMENT. AS STATED EARLIER, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ONLY WANTED TO MAKE A PROTECTIVE. ASSESSMENT. 17. FOR THESE REASONS ALSO, WE HOLD THAT THE REASONS RECORDED ARE SO VAGUE AND IRRELEVANT THAT THE ASSES SMENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED FROM THIS ANGLE ALSO. ACCORDING LY, WE CANCEL THE ASSESSMENTS SO FRAMED. 18. IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BY T HE CIT(A) AND WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS THUS SET ASIDE AN D PENDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U / S. 148 OF T HE ACT. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT ASSESSMENTS MADE ULS.148 OF THE ACT ARE - ALSO-BAD IN LAW. 19. ALTHOUGH, WE HAVE CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT, WE ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 18 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 PROCEED TO DISPOSE O F THE OTHER ISSUES ON MERITS IN CASE THE APPEALS ARE REVIVED IN FURTHER APPEAL. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TRIED TO CONTEST THAT T HE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE ORDER ABOUT TH E TREATMENT OF GOODWILL, GIFTS AND PRESENTATIONS AND ADDITIONS TOWARDS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH ARE COVERED IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THESE APPEALS. WE HAVE PERUSED THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES AND CONSIDERE D THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE . IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS, EVIDENCE AND HAS ALSO APPLIED THE PRINCIPLE LAID DO WN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NOORJAHAN REPORTED IN 237 ITR 540. THEREFORE, WE AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH ARE QUALITATIVELY UNEXCEPTIONAL FOR THESE YEARS ALSO AND WE UPHOLD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASS ESSEES IN THIS REGARD AS THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR. WE ACCEPT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ON THESE POINTS AND ARE ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OF . 8. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUN AL, THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DT.06.11.2007, HELD AS UNDER : 12. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE PRELIMINARY POINT RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO JURISDICTION AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENU E, IT IS OPEN FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECONSIDER THE MA TTER IN ITS ENTIRETY GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED. WITHOUT ANS WERING THE QUESTION OF LAW, AS THE MATTER HAS TO BE RECONS IDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALO RE DATED 12.3.2001, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 19 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 TAX (APPEALS) DATED 23.5.1997 AND THE ORIGINAL ORDE R PASSED BY THE 28.3.1996 ASSESSING AUTHORITY ARE SET ASIDE. 9. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF APPEAL IN ITA NOS.632 TO 672/BANG/1998, THE AO AGAIN ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148, DT.30.03.2000, CONSIDERING T HE ASSESSEE AS AOP. AFTER RECEIVING THE NOTICES, THE REPLIES WERE GIVEN ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, ON 23.02.2002 CHALLENGING THE REOPENING O F THE ASSESSMENT AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED THE RETURN UNDER PROTEST. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO AOP IN E XISTENCE AT ALL AND THE BOI WAS IN EXISTENCE UNTIL 12.09.1993 AND THERE AFTER IT WAS DISRUPTED. BESIDES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RAIS ED AN ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING. AFTER RECEIVING THE REPLY OF THE ASS ESSEE, THE AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF AOP AS PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT. THE ORDER OF AO WAS CHALLEN GED BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THE CIT (A) HAD CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A ), THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 10. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DT.03.04.2007 IN ITA NO.68 TO 103/2003 AND 1359 TO 1361/2002, HAS ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF T HE ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID ORDER, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 2.1 1 TO 2.14 AS UNDER : 2.11 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, IT IS CLEAR THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE DECID ED LAW, ONE HAS TO CONSIDER THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REOPENING ON THE BASIS OF REASONS RECORDED, IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS THAT VALIDITY OF NO TICE IS TO BE JUDGED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL EXISTING PRIOR TO I SSUE OF NOTICES:- ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 20 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 1. CHUNNILAL SURAJMAL V CIT (160 ITR 141) (PATNA) 2. ITO V TEXTILE MILLS AGENTS P. LTD. (130 ITR 733) (C AL.) EVEN THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYALAKSHMI D INDUSTRIES V ITO (155 ITR 748) HAS HELD THAT REOPENING IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS VALID ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS RECORDED AND NOTE, IF ANY, AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD CANNOT HELP IN HOLDING THAT REOPE NING IS VALID ON THE BASIS OF SUCH NOTE. FROM THE ASSESSMEN T O R DER, II IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF RETURNS FIL ED IN THE STATUS OF B 01. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATIO N AVAILABLE IN THE RETURNS OF THE 801 AND THIS FACT S UGGESTS THAT NO INFORMATION WAS AVAI L ABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONLY CHANGE OF OPINION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE RECEIPTS SHOWN AS GOODWILL AND GIFTS AND PRESENTATION IN THE RETURNS OF 801 ARE TO BE ASSESS ED IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP. THERE SHOULD BE SOME MATERIAL BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HOLD THE EXISTENCE OF AOP OR MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT SUCH PERSONS HAVE COME TOGETH ER TO START A JOINT VENTURE OF PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCING IN COME, PROFIT AND GAINS. IN THE REASONS RECORDED, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT MENTIONED ANY SUCH INFORMATION. FROM THE FACTS AVAILAB L E IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS CLEAR, THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS FORMED HIS OPINION ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT, WH ICH WERE EARLIER AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF 801. 2.12 HENCE, THE REASONS RECORDED DO NOT HAVE ANY NEXUS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS AO P IN EXISTENCE, 2.13 AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE REOPENED WHEN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDIN G BEFORE THE ITAT. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING S IN THE CASE OF BOI, THE LEARNED AP HAS POINTED OUT THAT TH E REVENUE HAS ISSUED NOTICES U/S 148. AT THAT RELEVANT TIME, THE REVENUE HAS NOT MADE ANY STATEMENT TO THE FACT THAT SUCH, I NCOME MAY BE ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 21 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 EXCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF BOI AS REVENUE IS OF THE O PINION THAT THE SAME IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF AOP. NO ARGUMENTS W ERE MADE THAT SUCH ADDITION MAY BE CONSIDERED PROTECTIVE IN THE HANDS OF B01. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED ISSUING O F NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE CASE OF B01 AND CONCLUDED WHILE DECI DING THE APPEAL OF B01 THAT RECEIPTS IN THE NATURE OF GOODWI LL IS CAPITAL RECEIPTS. SIMILARLY, RECEIPTS IN THE NATURE OF GIFT S AND PRESENTATION ARE ALSO NOT TAXABLE. ONCE SUCH FINDIN G HAS BEEN ARRIVED THAT SUCH RECEIPTS ARE NOT TAXABLE BUT BELO NGS TO B01 BY THE TRIBUNAL, THIS BENCH HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW EAR LIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW:- 1. STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR V CIT (191 CTR 344)(RAJ.) 2. SCHENECTADY BENCH INDIA LTD. V BCIT (91 ITB 23) (THIRD MEMBER) 3. ACIT V SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. (262 ITR 146) (GUJ.) 2.14 ONCE A FINDING HAS BEEN ARRIVED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE SAME FINDING CANNOT BE REVERSED WHILE HEARING APPEAL OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE AS IT WILL TANTAMOUNT TO REVIEW OF EARLIER ORDER. HENCE, ALSO ON THIS GROUND, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT RECEIPTS IN THE NATURE OF GOODWILL OR GIFT AND PRESENTATION BELONG TO AOP. THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON SUCH BASIS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N O JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, IT IS HELD THAT THE REOPENING IS NOT VALID IN THE E YES OF LAW. 11. AGAIN AT PARA.4 THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER : 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GANGA SAR AN & SONS P. LTD V. ITO (130 ITR 1). IN THIS CASE, THE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT THE WORDS HAS REASON TO BELIEVE ARE STRONGER THAN THE WORDS IS SATISFIED. THE HONBL E APEX ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 22 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 COURT HELD THAT THE COURT CANNOT INVESTIGATE INTO T HE ADEQUACY OR SUFFICIENCY OF THE REASONS WHICH HAVE W EIGHED WITH THE ITO IN COMING TO THE BELIEF, BUT THE COURT CAN CERTAINLY EXAMINE WHETHER THE REASONS ARE RELEVANT AND HAVE A BEARING ON THE MATTERS IN REGARD TO WHICH TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ENTERTAIN THE BEL IEF BEFORE HE CAN ISSUE NOTICE U/S.147. IF THERE IS NO RATION AL OR INTELLIGIBLE NEXUS BETWEEN THE REASONS AND THE BELI EF, THEN THE CONCLUSION WOULD BE INESCAPABLE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE ON UNDISPUTED FACTS DISCUSSE D IN THE ORDER AND ALSO TAKING NOTE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS ARE B AD IN LAW. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 12. BESIDES THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO DECIDED THE OTHE R GROUNDS ON MERIT. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE REVE NUE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN ITA.865/2007, VIDE ORDER DT.02.07.2010, HAD REMA NDED ALL THE APPEALS TO THE TRIBUNAL WITH A FOLLOWING DIRECTION : 9. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR BOTH SIDES AND ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT AT THE INITIAL ROUND OF LITIGATION THERE WAS A CHALLENGE MADE TO T HE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEES AS 'BOI' AND THE SAID NOTICES WERE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE APP ELLATE AUTHORITIES AND THEREAFTER, THE MATTER WAS HEARD BY THIS COURT AND BY ORDER DATED 6.11.2007 IN ITA NO. 197/2001 AND OTHER APPEALS, THE MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE A FINDING ON THE QUES TION AS TO WHETHER AS ON THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE 'BOI' EXISTED OR NOT. IT IS ALS O NOT IN DISPUTE THAT AFTER THE SAID REMAND, THE MATTER IS N OW PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE SAID APPEALS, WE ARE INFORMED, WERE FILED ON 8 TH MARCH 2010. IT IS NECESSARY TO NOTE THAT IN RESPECT OF THE VERY SAME ASSESSEES WHO ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WE RE 'BOI', ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 23 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EARLIER ISSUED NOTIC ES UNDER SECTION 148 BY ASSIGNING CERTAIN REASONS IN T HE SAID NOTICES, THAT THOSE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEES HAD C OMBINED THEMSELVES TOGETHER IN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING INCOME AND THAT THERE WAS AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS AND THEREFORE. ONCE AGAIN NOTICES WERE ISSU ED TO THE SAID INDIVIDUALS AS FORMING AN 'AOP'. THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148, HAS BEEN CONTESTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT BY CONT ENDING THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE RE WAS NO VALID REASONS ASSIGNED AND IT IS A MERE CHAN GE OF OPINION AND THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE A SSESSEES IN THE STATUS OF 'AOP' WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF TH E EARLIER ORDER PASSED IN THE STATUS OF 'BOL'. BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUSNEL FOR BOTH SIDES AND ON PERUSAL OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. PARTICULARLY, THE OR DER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND WHEN IN FACT THAT THE APPEALS WITH REGARD TO THE EXISTENCE OF 'BOL' AS ON THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF EARLIER NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 IS UN DER CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WE DEEM IT PROPE R THAT THESE APPEALS WOULD HAVE TO BE HEARD ALONG WITH THO SE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES PURSUANT TO THE REMA ND MADE BY THIS COURT ON 6.11.2007. 10. WE SAY SO FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON. IT IS NECESSARY TO NOTE THAT IT IS IN RESPECT OF THE VERY SAME ASSESSEES THAT THE CONTROVERSY REGARDING THE EXISTE NCE OF 'BOL' AS ON THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF EARLIER NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AN D IT IS IN RESPECT OF THE VERY SAME INDIVIDUALS AS TO WHETH ER THEY HAD CONSTITUTED THEMSELVES AS 'AOP' IN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REOPENING BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, SINCE THE ASSESSEES WHO HAD CONSTITUTED THEMSELVES AS 'BOL' ARE THE VERY SAME PERSONS WHO, ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE HAD COME TOGETHER AS 'AOP' . IT IS IN RESPECT OF THE RECEIPTS WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INCOME OF THE 'BOL' AS WELL AS THE SAME BEING T HE SUBJECT MATTER OF RECEIPTS BY 'AOP', WE THINK THAT THERE HA S TO BE ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 24 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 SIMULTANEOUS CONSIDERATION OF THESE ISSUES BY THE T RIBUNAL WHERE THE MATTERS WITH REGARD TO THE 'BOL' ARE NOW PENDING. 11. WE HAVE ALSO TO NOTE THAT WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL, AT THE FIRS T INSTANCE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD STATED THAT ANY REOPENIN G OF THE ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD AMOUN T TO A VIRTUAL REVIEW OF HIS OWN ORDER WHICH HAS MERG ED WITH THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO POWER TO REVIEW HIS OW N ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COU LD NOT HAVE ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. H AVING SAID THAT, THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER WENT INTO THE MERIT ' OF THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICES ISSUED WERE JUST IFIED OR NOT AND HAS GIVEN ITS REASONING FOR HOLDING THAT TH ERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE BODY OF INDIVIDUALS HAD COME TOGE THER AS AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS. THIS CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT BASED WITH REFERENCE TO THE RECORDS . FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION ON THE BASI S OF CASE LAW CITED AND AS TO HOW THE SAID CASE LAW WERE APPL ICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WITHOUT EXAMINING TH E EVIDENCE ON RECORD OR THE BASIS ON WHICH, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD ISSUED THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 14. THE TRIBUN AL WHILE GOING THROUGH THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE SAID REASONS DO NOT REC ORD AS TO HOW THE MEMBERS OF 'AOP' HAD COME TOGETHER TO EARN INCOME BY COLLECTING GOODWILL /ROYALTY FROM OTHER E XCISE CONTRACTORS FOR NOT BIDDING IN THE EXCISE AUCTIONS AND ENABLING THOSE CONTRACTORS TO SUCCEED IN THE AUCTIO N AND THAT THERE IS NO INFORMATION ON RECORD, TO SHOW AS TO HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION TH AT THE ASSESSEES HAD JOINED TOGETHER TO EARN INCOME. HAVIN G SAID THAT AND BY REFERRING TO THE TRUST DEED DATED 15.4.1980 HELD THAT THE 'BOL' HAD COME INTO EXISTENCE ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES FOR WHIC H BENEFICIAL INTEREST WAS ENTRUSTED AND THAT THE 'BOI ' HAD NOT VOLUNTARILY JOINED TOGETHER. HOWEVER, WHILE CONSIDERING THE RECEIPTS OF INCOME, THE TRIBUNAL STRAIGHTAWAY HELD THAT THE MEMBERS HAD NOT JOINED T OGETHER ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 25 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 VOLUNTARILY AND THEREFORE, THE INCOME CANNOT BE TAX ED IN THE HANDS OF 'AOP. IN OUR VIEW THERE IS NO BASIS FOR AR RIVING SUCH A CATEGORICAL CONCLUSION. WHEN THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS MENTIONED IN THE REASONS RECORDED THAT THE MEMB ERS OF THE FAMILY HAD COME TOGETHER TO EARN INCOME BY PARTICIPATING IN EXCISE AUCTION OR ALTERNATIVELY TO EARN INCOME BY COLLECTING GOODWILL OR ROYALTY FROM OTHER EXCISE CONTRACTORS FOR NOT BIDDING ANY EXCISE AUCTI ON AND ENABLING OTHER CONTRACTORS TO SUCCEED IN THE AUCTIO N, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAD HELD THAT SUCH AN ACTIVITY WOULD AMOUNT TO CONSCIOUS ACTIVITY OF MEMBERS COMING TOGETHER WHICH ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) JUSTIFIES THE GROUP BEING ASSESSED AS - AOP' RATHER THAN BOI. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO T CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEES ANY MATERIAL AND THEREF ORE, THE SAID MATERIAL COULD NOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSE ES. IF THAT BE SO, THEN THE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT HAVE STRAIG HTAWAY CONCLUDED THE MATTER ON MERITS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEES. THEREFORE, FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THESE APPEALS HAVE TO BE REMAN DED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES R AISED IN THESE APPEALS ALONG WITH THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE A PPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES WITH REGARD TO THE 'BOI' AND WHICH ARE FILED ON 8TH MARCH 2010 AND ARE PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 12. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REMAND, ALL THE CONTENTIONS WHICH ARE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS BY BO TH SIDES ARE LEFT OPEN. BOTH SIDES ARE AT LIBERTY TO FILE TH E ADDITIONAL MATERIAL WHICH THEY PROPOSE TO DO SO BY WAY OF PAPE R BOOK IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CONTENTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMO N IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30 TH APRIL 2007 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED IN PART. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL IS DIRECTED TO CALL FOR ORIGINAL RECORDS AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SAME, PRO CEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 26 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 13. IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT PRIOR TO PASSING OF THE ABOVE ORDER IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE D IRECTION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN ITA.197/2001; THE AO HAD ISSU ED NOTICE FOR REASSESSMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED OBJECTION S BEFORE THE AO VIDE ITS REPLY DT.09.12.2008, 15.12.2008 AND 22. 12.2008. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY THAT IT HAD SOUGHT THE REASONS RECORDED IN WRITING BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTI CE U/S.148 VIDE EARLIER COMMUNICATION DT.30.04.1996 AND AGAIN ON 09 .12.2008. ON MERIT IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BOI WAS DISSOLVE D W.E.F.12.09.1993 AND THEREFORE THE PROCEEDINGS CANN OT BE INITIATED U/S.147 AGAINST A DISSOLVED BOI. IT WAS ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 AGAINST THE DISSOLVED BOI IS BAD IN LAW. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY SU BMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAD HELD THAT AS PER SECTION 2(31)(V) OF THE ACT , THE ASSOCIATION / BODY OF INDIVIDUALS ARE KEPT IN ONE GROUP AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 177(1) ARE APPL ICABLE. IN VIEW OF THE MANDATE OF SECTION 177, THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS INCLUDING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CAN BE CONTI NUED AGAINST THE DISSOLVED ENTITY AFTER 12.09.1993. THEREFORE IT WAS HELD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE B AD IN LAW AND WERE RIGHTLY SERVED UPON THE DISSOLVED BOI. WITH R ESPECT TO OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO VALID ITY OF NOTICE U/S.148, THE AO IN HIS ORDER IN PARA 7 HELD THAT TH IS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN THE YE AR 1998 OR BEFORE ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 27 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 THE CIT (A). THEREFORE THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSE E IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IN THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 14. THE CIT (A) UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND IN PARAS 4.1, 4.2, 4.7 AND 4.10 UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S.148 IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : 4. VALIDITY OF ACTION U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT [GR.NO.2 TO 5.1] 4.1 AT THE TIME OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INCUMBENT AC, THE APPELLANT AGAIN CONTESTED AS BAD IN LAW THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT MADE BY HIS PREDECESSOR THROUGH NOTICES U/S 148 OF THE ACT ISSUED ON 28/3/1996 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ON THE SAME GROUNDS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD, BY THEN, CEASED TO BE IN EXISTENCE DUE TO THE DISRUPTION OF THE BODY OF INDIVIDUALS ON 12/9/1993; THAT NO INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT; AND THAT NO ASSESSMENT COULD BE MADE ON THE DISRUPTED BOI. THE INCUMBENT AC, QUOTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(31) OF THE ACT AND DRAWING ATTENTION TO CLAUSE (V) THEREOF, EXPLAINED IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE LAW MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN BODY OF INDIVIDUALS AND THE ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS AND APPLIES EQUALLY TO BOTH CATEGORIES OF ASSESSEES. AGAIN QUOTING THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 177(1) OF THE ACT, THE AO CLARIFIED THAT ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COULD BE VALIDLY INITIATED IN RESPECT OF DISRUPTED BODY OF INDIVIDUALS AS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE APPELLANT ITSELF HAD FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME THOUGH BELATED ON 30/9/1993 AND HAD REQUESTED THE AC TO CONSIDER THE SAME AS HAVING BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 28 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 NOTICES ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT CONSEQUENT TO THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. HOLDING THUS, HE WENT AHEAD AND COMPLETED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CORRECTNESS OF SUCH ACTION ON THE PART OF THE AO IS QUESTIONED IN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: '2. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED A .O. ON THE DISRUPTED BOI IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB-INIT IO IN AS MUCH AS THERE IS NO PROVISION TO ASSESS THE DISRUPT ED BOI UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APP ELLANT'S CASE. '2.1 THE LEARNED A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING T HAT THE APPELLANT BOI COULD BE ASSESSED AFTER ITS DISRUPTIO N BY TAKING RECOURSE TO SEC. 177 OF THE ACT UNDER THE FA CTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. HE FA ILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SEC. 177 OF THE ACT DID NOT APPLY T O BOI AND APPLIED TO AOP AND THERE WAS A DISTINCTION BETW EEN AOP AND BOI AND THEREFORE THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 177 OF THE ACT WAS OPPOSED TO LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGN ED ORDER PASSED DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 3, THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED A. O. IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND HENCE DESERVES TO BE CANCE LLED. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THE STATUS OF BOI IS BAD IN LAW ESPECIALLY CONSI DERING THE FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ASSESSED THE APPEL LANT AS AN AOP AND IS PROSECUTING THE MATTER IN THE STATUS OF AOP AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE STATUS OF BOI DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LA W IN AS MUCH AS THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 5.1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED A.O OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE OBJECTIONS OF THE APPE LLANT FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WERE VALID AND THEREFO RE, HE OUGHT TO HAVE DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED. TH E ORDER ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 29 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 OF ASSESSMENT THEREFORE IS INVALID AND REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED.' 4.2 AT PARA 4 OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS ACCOMPANYING THE APPEAL MEMO, THE APPELLANT STATES THAT THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEARS CAME TO BE FILED 'UNDER PROTEST IN RESPONSE TO THE ILLEGAL NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF TH E ACT.' IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED AT PARAS 9 AND 10 THEREI N THAT, WHEN THE APPELLANT'S REPRESENTATIVES INSPECTE D THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE REASONS F OR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENTS WERE RECORDED ONLY FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 1986-87 - AND 1991-92 AND NOT FOR THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL; THAT, EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE REASONS FOUND RECORDED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1986-87 AND 1991-92, OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE AO FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS BUT THEY WERE NOT TAKEN COGNISANCE OF B Y THE AO; THAT THE INCUMBENT AO'S OBSERVATION THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE RAISED SUCH OBJECTIONS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS BETRAYED HIS IGNORANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD AS MUCH RAISED SUCH OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE AC INITIATED U /S 147/148 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS; AND THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT HAD, IN FACT , DECLARED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 AND 1992-93 AS INVALID DUE TO THE AO'S FAILURE TO RECORD THE REASO NS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 4.7 THEREFORE, APPLYING THE SAID LEGAL POSITION NO W AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE AC TO ESTABLISH TO THE ENTIRE SATISFACTION OF THE APPELLANT REASONABLE BELIEF BAS ED ON WHICH THE NOTICE CAME TO BE ISSUED U/S 148. IN FACT, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS GONE TO THE EXTENT OF SAYING THAT CONFIRMATION OF THE BELIEF BY THE AO IS WITHIN THE REALM OF SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTI ON AND WHAT ALL HAS TO BE SATISFIED IS THAT THERE WERE ENOUGH MATERIALS TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF 1 ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 30 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 REASONABLE BELIEF, WHICH PERSUADED THE AO TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A ), THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 15. AT THIS STAGE AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ITS SUBSEQUENT DIRECTION VIDE ORDER D.02 .07.2010, HAD REMANDED THE MATTERS PERTAINING TO AOP TO THE TRIBU NAL WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE BOTH THE SET OF APPEALS TOGETHE R. 16. FIRSTLY, WE SHALL DECIDE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ORDER PASSED BY THE AO TREATING THE ASSE SSEE AS BOI IN ITA NOS 273-335/ BANG/2010. THE COMMON PRELIMINA RY GROUNDS NO 4 AND 4.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER : 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT PASSED U/S.147 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LA W IN AS MUCH AS THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 4.1 WITH PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE OBJECTIONS OF TH E APPELLANT FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WERE VALID A ND THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED OUT TO HAVE BE EN DROPPED. 17. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY IN THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION HAS SUBMITTED THAT ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 31 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 AFTER THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE U/S.148, THE ASSESSEE H AD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER PROTEST. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT T HE REASONS RECORDED IN WRITING BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.1 48, BASED ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD RAISE THE OBJECTION AGAINS T THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION REGARDING THE VALIDITY O F ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN GKN DR IVE SHAFT VS CIT [259 ITR 19], THE AO IS DUTY-BOUND TO FURNI SH THE REASONS RECORDED WITHIN REASONABLE TIME AND THEREAFTER THE AO IS BOUND TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN RESPECT OF VALIDITY OF ASS UMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE AO ON THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT THE REASONS VIDE LATEST COM MUNICATION DT.09.12.2008. HOWEVER, THE AO DESPITE THE REQUEST HAS NOT PROVIDED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING. 18. THE LD. DR DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.148, AR E AS UNDER : ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 32 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 33 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 34 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 BESIDE THESE TWO NOTE SHEETS NO OTHER REASONS RECOR DED WERE PRODUCED BEFORE US .LD. DR RELIES UPON THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE AO AND THE CIT (A). 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IT IS BEYOND THE PALE OF CONTROVERSY IN TERMS OF TH E JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF GKN DRIVESHA FT (SUPRA), THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE AO TO PROVIDE THE REASON S RECORDED FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S.148. FURTHER IT IS CLEAR THAT AFTER THE REASONS ARE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSE M AY FILE OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE THEREAFTE R THE AO WOULD PASS THE SPEAKING ORDER DEALING WITH THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE DESPITE SPECIFICALLY REQUEST BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO / CIT(A) FOR PROVIDING THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION , AO OR THE CIT (A) HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF LAW BY PROVIDIN G THE REASONS RECORDED BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 148 OF ACT TO THE ASSESSEE, HENCE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DT.09.12.2008 REMAINED UNANSWERED. FURTHER THE REASONS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE R EVENUE, REPRODUCED HEREIN ABOVE ARE BEREFT OF ANY REASONING AND ARE NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 20. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE TWO REASONINGS REPRODUCED H EREIN ABOVE, IT IS NOT DISCERNIBLE AS TO FOR WHICH BOI TH E REASONS WERE ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 35 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 RECORDED, FOR WHICH YEAR IT WERE RECORDED, WHAT WER E THE PAN NOS OF BOI AND WHAT WERE GROUND S FOR REOPENING. FURT HER THE REASONS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE ARE ONLY THE REASONS FORMING PART OF THE NOTE SHEET, WHEREAS FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF L AW, THE REASONS SHOULD BE RECORDED SEPARATELY AND THEREAFTER PROCEE DINGS SHOULD BE INITIATED BY THE AO.AS THE COPY OF REASONS ARE R EQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOTE SHEET OF THE PROC EEDINGS CANNOT ACQUIRE THE STATUS OF REASONS RECORDED 21. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NEITHER THE COPY OF REASON S RECORDED WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF GKN DRIVE SHAFT ( SUPRA ) NOR REQUEST FOR PROVIDING THE REAS ONS WAS ACCEDED TO BY THE AO NOR THE REQUEST DATED 9/12/ 2008 WAS D ISPOSED OF BY THE AO BY PASSING SPEAKING ORDER . THEREFORE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE BO I ARE WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE WE ALLO W THE GROUNDS 4 AND 4.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN BOI CASES BEARI NG ITA NOS.273 TO 342/BANG/2010, ARE ALLOWED. 22. AS WE HAVE DECIDED GROUND NOS.4 AND 4.1 REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE NOT ADJUDICATED BY US BEING ACADE MIC IN NATURE. IN THE RESULT ITA NOS.273 TO 342/BANG/2010, ARE ALL OWED. ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 36 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 ITA NOS.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 & ITA NOS.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002: 23. NOW, WE WILL DEAL WITH THE OTHER SET OF APPEAL FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREBY THE AO HAS TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS AOP PURSUANT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUNDS 2 AND 3 IN ALL THE APPEALS PERTAINING TO AOP IN ITA NOS.68 TO 103/BANG /2003 & ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 : 2. THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT IS HAD IN LAW AND VOI D-AB- INITIO FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION ESPECIALLY, THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S 148 OF THE ACT DID NOT EXIS T AND HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE REASSESSMENT REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN COMPLETING T HE RE--OPENED ASSESSMENT PROTECTIVELY UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. THEY 'FA ILED TO APPRECIATE THAT, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF TH E ACT TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE RESORTED TO ON LY WHERE THERE IS INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT AND NOT MERELY ON SUSPICION OF INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT THE ACTION OF THE A.0. IN ASSESSING THE INCOME PROTECTIVELY CLEARLY BRINGS OUT THE DOUBT A ND SUSPICION AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED. 24. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE R EVENUE, VIDE LETTER DT.30.03.2000 HAS ISSUED A NOTICE TREATING T HE ASSESSEE AS AOP WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS FOR REOPENING. SCANNED COPY OF THE NOTICE IS GIVEN BELOW : ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 37 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 25. AFTER RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER PROTEST AND THEREAFTER VIDE LETTER DT. 23.02.2002 THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO PROVIDE COPY OF THE RE ASONS FOR REOPENING. THE AO HAS NOT PROVIDED THE REASONS AND HAS STRAIGHT AWAY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AR S UBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE MATTER ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 38 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 OF GKN DRIVESHAFT (SUPRA), THE PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDE D BY THE AO/ CIT(A) WERE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND WAS LIABLE TO B E QUASHED BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 26. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 27. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, VIDE JUDGMENT DT.02.07.2010 HAV E LEFT ALL THE ISSUES OPEN AND DIRECTED THE TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE PARTIES AND THE PARTIES WERE GIVEN THE LIBERTY TO FILE THE DOCUMENTS / ADDITIONAL MATERIAL, IF ANY, TO SUPPORT THEIR RESPE CTIVE CASES. AT THIS STAGE, WE WISH TO MENTION THAT THE REVENUE IN THE C ONNECTED MATTER BEARING ITA NOS.273 TO 279/BANG/2010 IN THE MATTER OF D. VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS HAS FILED THE PAPER BOOK ON 15.09. 2010 IE. AFTER PASSING OF THE JUDGMENT BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE REVENUE AT SL. NO.12, THAT THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCEPTING TAXATION AS BOI EVEN AFTER T HE DISRUPTION AND HAD AGREED TO PAY THE TAX AS PER THE KVSS IN THE CA PACITY OF BOI. COPY OF SCAN DOCUMENT FILLED IN CONNECTED PROCEEDIN GS IS AS UNDER : ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 39 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 28. NO OTHER DOCUMENT OR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WAS FILED ESTABLISHING THE EXISTENCE OF AOP AND PROVIDING THE EVIDENCE FOR SUPPLY OF THE REASONS BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US. ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 40 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 29. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NEITHER THE COPY OF REASON S RECORDED WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF GKN DRIVE SHAFT ( SUPRA ) NOR REQUEST FOR PROVIDING THE REAS ONS WAS ACCEDED TO BY THE AO NOR THE REQUEST DATED 23.02.2002 WAS D ISPOSED OF BY THE AO BY PASSING SPEAKING ORDER. UNDER THESE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, THE ENTIRE EXERCISE OF PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF AOP WERE DONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. M OREOVER NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED BY THE REVENUE F OR VALIDATING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING PROCE EDINGS ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 30. THEREFORE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE AOP ARE WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTIO N. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE WE ALLOW THE GROUNDS 2 AND 3 OF THE AS SESSEES APPEAL IN AOP CASES BEARING ITA NOS.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 & ITA NOS.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2012, ARE ALLOWED. 31. AS WE HAVE DECIDED GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE NOT ADJUDICATED BY US BEING ACADE MIC IN NATURE. 32. TO SUMMARISE, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE TOTAL LING TO 109 APPEALS, IN ITA NOS.273 TO 279/BANG/2010, ITA NOS.6 9 TO 103/BANG/2003 AND ITA NOS.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002, A RE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) (LALIT KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BENGALURU DATED : 06.12.2017 MCN* ITA.273 TO 335/BANG/2010 PAGE - 41 ITA.68 TO 103/BANG/2003 ITA.1359 TO 1361/BANG/2002 COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY