Shri Vijayan Unnithan, Trivandrum V. DCIT, Trivandrum

ITA 291/COCH/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3007 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S BINDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: IYPE MATHEWFCA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Document seized; Difference of opinion; Documents seized; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 201; 143(2); 264; 147; 148

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFOR E S/ SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., J M I .T . A. NO . 76/ COCH/ 201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2 0 05 - 06 SHRI KOCHANIYAN UNNITHAN, T.C. NO.9/2196, NARAYANA BHAVAN, KURUPS LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM. [PAN:AAAPU 8015D] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), TRIVANDRUM. (ASSESSEE - AP PELLANT) (REVENUE - RESPONDENT) I .T.A. NO.94/COCH/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06 SHRI AYYAPPAN UNNITHAN, T.C. NO.9/2196, NARAYANA BHAVAN, KURUPS LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM. [PAN:AAAPU 8016A] VS. THE DEPUT Y COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), TRIVANDRUM. (ASSESSEE - APPELLANT) (REVENUE - RESPONDENT) I .T.A. NO.291/COCH/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06 SHRI VIJAYAN UNNITHAN, T.C. NO.9/2196, NARAYANA BHAVAN, KURUPS LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM. [PAN:AAAPU 8012E] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), TRIVANDRUM. (ASSESSEE - APPELLANT) (REVENUE - RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.76,94 & 291/COCH/2018 2 A SSESSEE BY SHRI IYPE MATHEW,FCA REVENUE BY SMT. A.S. BINDHU, SR. DR D ATE OF HEARING 0 6 / 0 3 / 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 6 / 0 3 /201 9 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: TH E SE APPE AL S FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEE S ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE DIFFERENT ORDER S OF THE CIT (A), TRIVANDRUM AND PERTAIN TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. 2 . THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE COMMON WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, TRIVANDRUM IS AG AINST LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2) THE CIT APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RE - OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S 153 A R.W.S 143 (3) OF THE I. T . ACT , U/S 147 AFTER 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASST YEAR WAS VALI D INSPITE OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF REF CIT AND ANR VS. FORAMER FRANCE 264 ITR 566. 3) THE CIT APPEALS SHOULD HAVE NOTED THAT WHEN ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS WERE FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT , THERE W AS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL RELEVANT FACTS BEFORE THE A.O , WHO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A R.W.S 143 (3) OF THE I.T ACT. REF MACDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC VS ADDL. CIT AND A N R 259 ITR 138 (UTTARANCHAL). 4) THE CIT APPEALS SHOULD HAVE NOTED THAT THE COCHIN TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S CORDIAL COMPANY , IN WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS A PARTNER FOR THE ASST YEAR 2004 - 2005 , ON SIMILAR FACTS HELD IN ITA NO. 119/ COCH/2013 DTD 22/11/2013, THAT THE RE - OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASST YEAR WAS INVALID UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE I. T . ACT , SINCE THE ORIGINAL ASST IN THAT CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 153A R.W.S 143 (3) AND THE ASSESEE HAS FURNISHED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT, THE CURRENT ACCOUNT COPIES OF THE PARTNERS , ON SPECIFIC REQUEST FROM THE A.O. SO THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE NECESSARY PARTICULARS. I.T.A. NOS.76,94 & 291/COCH/2018 3 5) THE CIT APPEALS SHOULD HAVE NOTED THAT THE A.O DID NOT ALSO STATE WHAT RELE VANT FACTS , IF ANY, WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE A.O AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASST WHICH LED HIM TO RE - OPEN THE ASST AFTER 4 YEARS. REF YAKUB ALI GOPAL SINGH AND PARTY VS DCIT AND ANR 209 CTR (RAJ) 136. 6) THE CIT APPEALS SHOULD ALSO HAV E NOTED THAT THE A.O DID NOT ALSO DISCLOSE IN THE REASONS RECORDED AS TO WHICH FACT OR MATERIAL WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT FULLY AND TRULY WHICH WAS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASST YEAR 2005 - 2006, SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE VITAL LINK BETWEEN THE REASONS AND THE EVIDENCE. THEREFORE THE RE - OPENING SHOULD H AVE BEEN HELD AS INVALID. REF. HINDUSTAN LIVER LTD VS. R. B . WADKAR AC1T AND ANR 268 1TR 332. 7) AS THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED WITHOUT RECORDING THAT 'THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE APPELLANT'S PA RT TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASST FOR THE ASST YEAR 2005 - 2006, THE RE - ASSESSMENT NOTICE ISSUED AFTER 4 YEARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD AS INVALID BY THE CIT APPEALS . REF. TITANOR COMPONENTS LTD VS. ASST CIT AND ORS 243 C TR (BOM) 520. 3. THE ASSESSES HEREIN HAVE ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 143 R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION SINCE THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED ONLY ON 11/07/2011 I.E. DURING THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, ONLY ON THE 7 TH YEAR AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR MADE AN ENDORSEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSES HEREIN DID NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. AS SUCH, TH E ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5 . SINCE THE FACTS IN THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR, WE CONSIDER THE FACTS AS NARRATED IN ITA NO. 76/COCH/2018. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ORIGINALLY COMPL ETED U/S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER PASSED ON 21/12/2007. THE ASSESSMENT WAS THEN RE - OPENED VIDE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 11/07/2011. THE REASON FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS THAT THE CLOSING BALANCE IN THE CURRENT ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSE WITH THE FIRM M/S. CORDIAL COMPANY AS I.T.A. NOS.76,94 & 291/COCH/2018 4 ON 31/03/2014 WAS ( - ) RS.10,09,073/ - WHEREAS THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01/04/2004 WAS ( - ) RS.8,48,477/ - . THIS CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,60,596/ - TO THE ACCOUNT WH ICH IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SINCE AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,60,596/ - HAD ESCAPED FROM THE ASSESSMENT, NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED WHICH IN TURN WAS RESPONDED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER FILE ON 20 /07/2011 REQUESTING TO TREAT THE RETURN WHICH WAS FILED ORIGINALLY ON 01/12/2007 AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED SUBSEQUENTLY U/S. 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAD RAISED OBJECTIO N AND CHALLENGED THE VERY REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ENTERTAINED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY VALID EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING BALANCE WITH THE FIRM M/S. CORDIAL COMPNAY TO THE TURN O F RS.1,60,596/ - , THE SAME WAS TREATED AS INCOME ESCAPED FROM ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY, ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED IN THE ABSENCE OF SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION OFFERED. 5. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS FORAMER FRANCE (284 ITR 6 6), HON'BLE HIGH COURTS OF UTTA RANCHAL (259 ITR 138), RAJASTHAN (209 CTR 136), BOMBAY (243 CTR 520) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, CO CHIN BENCH IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN CASHEW EXPORTERS VS DCIT IN ITA NO . 529/COCH/2010 DT . 02.03.2012. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SOLE REASON FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS BASED ON THIS CURRENT ACCOUNT A COPY OF I.T.A. NOS.76,94 & 291/COCH/2018 5 WHICH WAS ALREADY FILED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND VERIFIED BY THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER AND ONLY AFTER GETTING SATISFIED ABOUT THE ENTRIES THEREIN, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AND HENCE, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE BUT ACCO RDING TO THE CIT(A),THIS SEEMS TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT SINCE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 153A RWS 143(3) SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH CARRIED OUT WHERE FOCUS WOULD BE MORE ON SEIZED MATERIALS THAN ANY OTHER MATERIALS INCLUDING ON CURRENT ACCOUN T WHICH THE ASSESSEE S CLAIMED TO HAVE FILED AT THAT POINT OF TIME. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), I T IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FACT OF CREDITING THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF HIM FOR A SUM OF RS.1,60,596/ - HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH IN TURN HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DECIDED NOT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION AND FI LING THE CURRENT ACCOUNT COPY ALONE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH SO AS TO SAY THAT THE CAPT IONED ISSUE HAD ALREADY BEEN VERIFIED AND REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AT A LATER DATE IS AN OUTCOME OF CHANGE OF OPINION. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT T H E SUPREME COURT DECISION RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WAS NO T APPLICABLE TO HIM SINCE THE OR IGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS NOT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) B UT U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3 ) WHERE FOCUS WAS MORE ON SEIZED MATERIALS AND NO ADDITION FOR THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE ASSESSEE'S CURRENT ACCOUNT IN THE SEARCH ASSESSMENT COULD BE MADE. HENCE, REOPENING AFTER FOU R YEARS BUT BEFORE SIX Y EARS U/S 148 IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE LIMIT OF THE ACT AND THE ONLY CONDITION CONTEMPLATED IN THE ACT IS THE ESCAPED AMOUNT WOULD BE MORE THAN RS. 1 LAKH AS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT T HOUGH THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. NOS.76,94 & 291/COCH/2018 6 CLAIMED TO HAVE FILED THE CURRENT ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NEVER BROUGHT INTO RECORD DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AS THE SAME WAS VERIFIED BY THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER WHO I N TURN GOT SATISFIED WITH THE SOURCE FOR THE SUM OF RS.1,60,596/ - CREDITED INTO IT. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSMENT REOPENED AT A LATER DATE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE COULD NOT BE SAID AS BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION BUT ON COGENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE SURFACED SUBSEQUENTLY WHICH NECESSITATED REOPENING WITHOUT WHICH THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMPENSATED. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSMENT GOT RIGHTLY REOPENED BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,60,596/ - INTO HIS CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH THE FIRM MENTIONED SUPRA AND SOURCE TO BE EXPLAINED FOR THE SAME HAD NOT AT ALL BEEN A SUBJECT MATTER OF DISCUSSION DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS A RESULT, THE OTHER DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURTS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO HIS CASE. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A) A NOTHER DECISION OF THE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN CASHEW EXPORTERS WAS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO HIS CA SE SINCE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS NOT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) BUT U/S 153A RWS 143(3) WHERE THE FOCUS WAS MORE ON SEIZED MATERIALS. SIMILARLY, THE ITAT COCHIN BENCH DECISION IN CORDIAL COMPANY FOR THE AY 2004 - 05 WAS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF ASSES SEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE SOURCE FOR THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN TO THE CURRENT ACCOUNT HA D NOT BEEN EXPLAINED YET. 5.1 THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE VERY ASSESSMENT GOT REOPENED IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE DISCLOSING THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,60,596 / - WHICH HE CREDITED INTO HIS CURRENT I.T.A. NOS.76,94 & 291/COCH/2018 7 ACCOUNT HE HAD WITH THE FIRM MENTIONED SUPRA WH EREIN HE WAS A PARTNER. THE ASSESSEE WAS BASICALLY EXPECTED NOT ONLY TO DISCLOSE THE FACT OF THE AMOUNT CREDITED INTO HIS CURRENT ACCOUNT BUT ALSO TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FO R THE SAME. IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCLOSING NOT ONLY THE AMOUNT CREDITED INTO THE CURRENT BUT ALSO EXPLAINING SOURCE FOR THE SAME, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS VERY WELL WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE LIMIT OF THE ACT AND DOESN'T REQUIRE FURTHER INTERFERENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF SOURCE EXPLAINED FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.L,60,S96/ - CREDITED INTO CURRENT ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAD WITH THE FIRM M/S. CORDIAL CORRPANY WHEREIN HE WAS A PARTNER, THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.1,60,596/ - WAS CONFIRMED AND ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. A GAINST THIS, THE ASSESSES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEES PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. CORDIAL COMPANY IN IT A NO. 119/COCH/2013 DATED 22/11/2013 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE C OMPLETED EARLIER U/S 143 ( 3) BY AN ORDER DATE D 24 - 12 - 2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE ON 29 - 03 - 2011. ADMITTEDLY, THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS' PERIOD. PROVISO TO SECTION 147 CLEARLY SAYS THAT ONCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) IT CANN OT BE REOPENED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS UNLESS THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FURNISHING THE REQUIRED DETAILS FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE J UDGMENT OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT, THE L D. DR SUBMITTED THAT MER E PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT SUFFICIENT AND THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE PARTICULAR ITEM IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR PORTION OF THE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE RELEVANT. IN THIS CASE, ACCORDING T O THE L D. DR, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE REOPENED EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS, I.T.A. NOS.76,94 & 291/COCH/2018 8 WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR, THIS IS NOT A REGULAR ASSESSMENT. THIS IS SEARCH ASSESSMENT. THE EN TIRE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED AND WERE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE DEPARTMENT - . DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SOUGHT DETAILS THROUGH A SPECIFIC QUESTIONNAIRE IN FACT IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24 - 1 2 - 2007 THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED FOR ALL THE DETAILS SPECIFICALLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 10 - 05 - 2007 BY ISSUING A QUESTIONNAIRE HAS CA LL ED F OR THE FOLLOWING DETAILS WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER: '.... A QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 10.5.2007, REQUESTING THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND TO FILE STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNTS, CASH FLOW STATEMENT, PARTNERS CAPITAL AND CURRENT ACCOUNT, DETAILS OF ADDITION MADE TO FIXED ASSETS ETC.' 5. THE ASSESSING OF FICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SPECIFIC DETAILS WITH REGARD TO BANK ACCOUNTS, CASH FLOW STATEMENT, PARTNERS CAPITAL AND CURRENT ACCOUNT, DETAILS OF ADDITION MADE TO FIXED ASSETS ETC. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: AFTER VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE DETAILS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED A PRE - ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL DATED 3.12.12007.' 6. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS SPECIFICALLY RAISED A QUERY WITH REGARD TO PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND CURRENT ACCOUNT. THIS WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSEE BY A LETTER DATED 21/11/2007. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF BRINGING TO THE NOT ICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE PARTICULAR ITEM IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR PORTION OF THE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE RELEVANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SPECIFICALLY INVITED THE ATTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE SPECIFIC ITEM IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLARIFIED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FURNISHING THE REQUIRED DETAILS FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT . THEREFORE , THE JUDGMENT OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ALAPPAT JEWELS (SUPRA) MAY NOT BE RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. SINCE THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FURNISHING THE PARTICULARS WITH REGARD TO PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AN D CURRENT ACCOUNT AND OTHER DETAILS, PROVISO TO SECTION 147 WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND HENCE, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NOS.76,94 & 291/COCH/2018 9 7. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, IN THESE CASES, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S. 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENTS, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSES APPEARED AND FILED COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS, PARTNERS CURRENT ACCOUNT AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER BEING SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS U/S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN THIS SITUATION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSE ES HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY REQUIRED FOR THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS AND CHOSE NOT TO MA K E ADDITION ON THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR RE - OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FURNISHING THE REQUIRED DETAILS FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENTS. I.T.A. NOS.76,94 & 291/COCH/2018 10 8.1 WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CORDIAL COMPANY CITED SUPRA A IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASES. ACCORDINGLY, TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW WITH THE TRIBUNAL, WE VACATE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSES HEREIN. 9. IN T HE RESULT, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSES ARE ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 0 6 H MARCH , 2019 SD / - SD/ - (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 0 6 TH MARCH , 2019 GJ COPY TO: 1 . SHRI KOCHANIYAN UNNITHAN, T.C. NO.9/2196, NARAYANA BHAVAN, KURUPS LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SHRI AYYAPPAN UNNITHAN, T.C. NO.9/2196, NARAYANA BHAVAN, KURUPS LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SHRI VIJAYAN UNNITHAN, T.C. NO.9/2196, NARAYANA BHAVAN, KURUPS LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM. 4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), TRIVANDRUM. 5 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, TRIVANDRUM 6 . D. R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 7 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., COCHIN I.T.A. NOS.76,94 & 291/COCH/2018 11