Magnolia Estates (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2933/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 293320114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUKHVER CHARUDHARY
• Keywords: Business income; Question of law; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2933,2935/DEL/201 & I.T.A. NO. 1763/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04,04-05 & 2005-06 MAGNOLIA ESTATES (P) LTD., ITO, C-5/44, SAFADARJUNG DEV. AREA, WARD-5 (1), NEW DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AACCM AACCM AACCM AACCM- -- -1851 1851 1851 1851- -- -A AA A APPELLANT BY : SHRI KVS GUPTA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUKHVER CHARUDHARY, SR. DR. ORDER PER TS KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS A BUNCH OF THREE APPEALS, ALL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) DATED 15.2.2011, 15.2.2011 AND 30.1.2012 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SIX GROUNDS OF APPEALS IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS AND THEY ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE. THE FIRST GROUND IN A LL THESE APPEALS IS REGARDING OPENING OF THE CASES U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED IN RESPECT OF THESE A PPEALS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE GROUNDS OF APPEALS TAKEN BY THE ASSE SSEE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- -- -04: 04: 04: 04: 1. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A)'S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD A.O. IN TAKING ACTION U/S 147/148 IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRA RY, ITA NO2933,2935&1763/DEL/11-12 2 UNWARRANTED, UNCALLED FOR & AGAINST THE FACTS & CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A)'S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF ` .2,18,550/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS AGAINST NIL RETURNED IS I LLEGAL, ARBITRARY, UNWARRANTED, UNCALLED FOR & AGAINST THE F ACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3.THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A),S IN CONFIRMING THE A CTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN NOT TAKING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AT ` .34,525/- AS RETURNED IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, UNWARRANTED, UNCAL LED FOR & AGAINST THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN CHARGING PENAL INT EREST U/S 234B & 234D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ILLEGAL, ARBIT RARY, UNWARRANTED, UNCALLED FOR & AGAINST THE FACTS & CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5) THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE T O EACH OTHER. 6) THE APPELLANT RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ADD I ALTER I MOD IFY I AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INITIALLY COMPLETED U/S 143(1 ) OF THE ACT AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REOPENED THE CASES ON THE B ASIS OF DOCUMENTS ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION OTHER THAN THE MATERIAL ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, ON THE STRENGTH OF DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO2933,2935&1763/DEL/11-12 3 CIT V. ORIENT CRAFT LTD., IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE REO PENING WAS ILLEGAL AND OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE FINDINGS OF HON' BLE COURT AT PARA 14 OF THE SAID ORDER. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE SAID ORDER, IT WAS ARGUED BY LD AR THAT REOPENING WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 3. THE LD DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING O F THE CASES ARE AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- -- -04: 04: 04: 04: 'THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESEE IS RENTAL IN COME TO THE TUNE OF ` .3,12,208/-, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THIS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'BUSINESS INCOME'. IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED VARIOUS TYPES EXPENSES TOTALING TO ` .2,71,473/-, RESULTING TO THE PROFIT BEFORE TAXATION AT ` ,10,735/-. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE SET-OFF OF B/F LOSSES TO THE TUNE OF ` .6,210/-. AS A RESULT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ` .34,530/-. AS PER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF IT ACT, 1961, THE R ENTAL INCOME IS COVERED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERT Y'. WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY', THE PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTIONS ARE AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 24. FROM THE DETAILS & REPORTS ETC., FILED WITH THE ABOVE IT RETURN, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEES ONLY BUSINESS ACTIVITY WAS TO EARN THE ITA NO2933,2935&1763/DEL/11-12 4 RENTAL INCOME. THIS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IS COVERED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THERE IS NO OTHER ACTIVITY BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, COVERABLE UND ER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. IN THE CASE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO EXPENSES IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A NY INCOME COVERABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE, THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NIL. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD H AVE RE- GROUPED ITS RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY. IT SHOULD HAVE CLAIMED ONLY THOSE DEDUCTI ONS WHICH ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE HEAD AS PER LAW. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004- -- -05: 05: 05: 05: THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES IN ITS P&L A/C. I N COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD CORRECTLY REGRO UPED THE RENTAL & INTEREST INCOMES INTO THEIR RESPECTIVE HE ADS AND CLAIMED APPLICABLE DEDUCTION(S) UNDER THOSE HEADS OF I NCOMES. THIS RESULTED INTO THE NEGATIVE BALANCE OF ` .1,91,780/- UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD SET OFF THIS NEGATI VE INCOME OF ` .1,91,780/- WITH THE POSITIVE INCOMES CALCULATED UNDER THE ABOVE TWO HEADS OF INCOMES, NAMELY INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY & INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FROM THE DETAILS & REPORTS ETC., FILED WITH THE ABOVE IT RETURN, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEES ONLY BUSINESS ACTIVITY WAS TO EARN THE RENTAL INCOME. THIS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IS COVERED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THERE IS NO OTHER ACTIVITY BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, COVERABLE UNDE R THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. IN THE CASE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO EXPENSES IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A NY INCOME COVERABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ITA NO2933,2935&1763/DEL/11-12 5 BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NIL. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INADMISSIBLE EXPENSES TO REDUCE TH E TAXABLE INCOME BY ` .1,91,780/-. THEREFORE, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ` .1,91,780/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ORDER. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005- -- -06: 06: 06: 06: FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE MADE SOME TRANSACTIONS IN MUTUAL FUND. WHEREIN IT HAS SUFFERED A LOSS (SHORT TERM) OF ` .19,557/-. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, IT HAS CORRECTLY RE-GROUPED THIS LOSS UNDER SHORT TERM CAPITA L LOSS, TO BE CARRIED FORWARD. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES IN ITS PROFIT & L OSS ACCOUNT. IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD CORRECTLY RE-GROUPED THE RENTAL & INTEREST INCOMES & SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS INTO THEIR RESPECTIVE HEADS AND CLAIMED AP PLICABLE DEDUCTION(S) UNDER THOSE HEADS OF INCOMES, THIS RESULTED INTO THE NEGATIVE BALANCE OF ` .2,87,958/-, UNDER THE HEAD ''BUSINESS' INCOME'. THE ASSESSEE HAD SET-OFF THIS 'NEGATIVE' INCOME OF ` .2,87,958/- WITH THE POSITIVE INCOMES CALCULATED UNDE R THE ABOVE TWO HEADS OF INCOMES, NAMELY 'INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY''' & 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FROM THE DETAILS & REPORTS ETC., FILED WITH THE ABOVE 1.T. RETURN, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEES ONLY BUSINESS ACTIVITY WAS TO EARN THE RENTAL INCOME, THIS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IS COVERED UN DER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. AS SUCH, THERE IS N O ACTIVITY ITA NO2933,2935&1763/DEL/11-12 6 COVERABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'BUSINESS INCOME'. IN THIS CASE , AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, NO EXPENSE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY INCOME COVERABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'BUSINESS INCOME'. THEREFORE, THE 'BUSINESS INCOME' OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN - NIL. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INADMISSIBLE EXPENSES TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE' INCOME BY ` .2,87,958/-. THEREFORE I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME, TO THE EXTENT OF ` .2,87,958/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ' 5. FROM THE REASONS RECORDED ABOVE IN RESPECT OF THESE THREE APPEALS WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REOPENED T HE CASES ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS AND REPORTS ATTACHED WITH THE RE TURN OF INCOME. THERE WAS NO OTHER MATERIAL FROM WHICH THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAD ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HA D ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS THE RETURN OF INCOME W AS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 19.11.2003 AND 6.1.2005 RESPECTIVELY. T HE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WAS FILED ON 10.10.20 05 AND THE SAME WAS ALSO PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, T HE DATE OF PROCESSING IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HOWE VER, ON READING OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS THE FACT EMERGES THAT THE CA SES WERE EARLIER PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AND WERE REOPENED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FROM DOCUMENTS ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ORIEN T CRAFT LTD. HAS DEALT WITH THE SIMILAR SITUATION AND HAS HELD THAT REOPENIN G IN THE CASES PROCESSED U/S 143(1) IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IF THERE IS NO TAN GIBLE MATERIAL WHICH CAME TO THE POSSESSION OF ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUE OF INTIMATION U/S 143(1). THE REASONS RECORDED IN THAT JUDGMENT AS EXTRACTED IN THE ABOVE ORDER VIDE PARA 3 ARE REPROD UCED AS UNDER:- ITA NO2933,2935&1763/DEL/11-12 7 ON 15 TH AUGUST, 2005 A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED F OR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT INCOME CHA RGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE RE ASONS RECORDED U/S 148(2) FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS WRONG IN TREATING THE PROCEEDS OF SALE OF QUO TA AS PART OF EXPORT TURNOVER FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 8 0HHC. IT WAS ALSO THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SALE PROCE EDINGS OF THE QUOTA CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EXPORT TURNOVER BUT REPRESENTED BUSINESS INCOME COVERED U/S 28(IV) OF THE AC T AND HAD TO BE REDUCED TO THE EXTENT OF 90% FROM THE BUSI NESS INCOME AS PROVIDED BY EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80 HHC OF THE ACT. NOT DOING SO, RESULTED IN EXCESSIVE ALLOWANCE U/S 8 0HHC AND CONSEQUENTLY IN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TA X. 6. THE RETURN IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON 31.10.2002 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS 2002-03 AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 27TH FEBRUARY, 2003. 7. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF HON'BLE COURT ARE REPROD UCED BELOW:- CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE DECISION OF RAJESH JH AVERI (SUPRA) ARE SOUGHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE T O POINT OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ASSESSMENT AND AN INTIMAT ION . THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THOSE OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE HAS T O BE KEPT IN MIND. THEY WERE MADE TO POINT OUT THAT WHER E AN INTIMATION IS ISSUED U/S 143(1) THERE IS NO OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO FORM AN OPINION AND THEREFORE WH EN ITS FINALITY IS SOUGHT TO BE DISTURBED BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148, THE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND OF C HANGE OF ITA NO2933,2935&1763/DEL/11-12 8 OPINION. IT WAS NOT OPINED BY THE SUPREME COURT THA T THE STRICT REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 147 CAN B E COMPROMISED. ON T HE CONTRARY FROM THE OBSERVATIONS (QUOTED BY US EARLIER) IT WOULD APPEAR CLEAR THAT THE COURT REITERATED THAT SO LONG AS THE INGREDIENTS OF SEC. 147 ARE FULFILLED AN INTIMATION ISSUED U/S 143(1) CAN BE SUBJECTED TO PROCEEDINGS FOR REOPENING . THE COURT ALSO EMPHASIZED THAT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT FOR DISTURBI NG THE FINALITY OF AN INTIMATION IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HA S ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN OUR OPINION, THE SAID EXPRESSION SHOU LD APPLY TO AN INTIMATION IN THE SAME MANNER AND SUBJECT TO THE SAME INTERPRETATION AS IT WOULD HAVE APPLIED TO AN ASSE SSMENT MADE U/S 143(3). THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT A N INTIMATION CANNOT BE EQUATED TO AN ASSESSMENT RELYING U PON CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN RAJESH JH AVERI (SUPRA) WOULD ALSO APPEAR TO BE SELF DEFEATING, BECAUS E IF AN INTIMATION IS NOT AN ASSESSMENT THEN IT CAN NEVER BE SUBJECTED TO SEC. 147 PROCEEDINGS, FOR THAT SECTION COV ERS ONLY AN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WE WONDER IF THE REVENUE WOUL D BE PREPARED TO CONCEDE THAT POSITION. IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT AN INTIMATION CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO SEC. 147 PROCEED INGS, ALL THAT IS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND QUITE RIGHTLY, IS THAT IF THE REVENUE WANTS TO INVOKE SECTION 147 IT SHOULD PLAY BY THE RULES OF THAT SEC. AND CANNOT BOG DOWN. IN OTHER WORDS, THE EXPRESSION REASON TO BELIEVE CANNOT HAVE TWO DIFFERENT STANDAR DS OR SETS OF MEANING, ONE APPLICABLE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT WAS EAR LIER MADE U/S 143(3) AND ANOTHER APPLICABLE WHERE AN INTI MATION WAS EARLIER ISSUED U/S 143(1). IT FOLLOWS THAT IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEND THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE ARGUMENT OF CHANGE OF OPINION IS NOT AVAILABLE TO HIM, IT WOULD STILL BE OP EN TO HIM TO ITA NO2933,2935&1763/DEL/11-12 9 CONTEST THE REOPENING ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS EI THER NO REASON TO BELIEVE OR THAT THE ALLEGED REASON TO BELIE VE IS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF THAT INCOM E CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN DOING SO, IT IS FURTHER OP EN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE THE REASONS RECORDED U/S 148(2) ON THE GROUND THAT THEY DO NOT MEET THE STANDARDS SET IN THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE REASONS DISCLOSE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REACHED THE BELIEF THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON GOING THROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE AFTER HE ACCEPTED THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 143(1) W ITHOUT SCRUTINY, AND NOTHING MORE. THIS IS NOTHING BUT A REVI EW OF THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS AND AN ABUSE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, BOTH STRONGLY DEPRECATED BY THE SUPREME COU RT IN CIT VS. KELVINATOR (SUPRA). THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE DO CONFIRM OUR APPREHENSION ABOUT THE HARM THAT A LESS STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS REASON T O BELIEVE VIS-A-VIS AN INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(1) CAN CAUSE TO THE TAX REGIME. THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE REASONS RECO RDED, OF ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH CAME TO THE POSSESSION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF THE INTIMATION . IT REFLECTS AN ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 147. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, WE ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED BY US IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGL Y DISMISSED. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. ITA NO2933,2935&1763/DEL/11-12 10 9. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT APPEALS AR E SAME AS DEALT BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWING THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT WE HOLD THAT THE REOPENIN G U/S 147/148 WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OTHER DOCUMENT S/INFORMATION OTHER THAN THE ANNEXURE ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE THOUGH RETURNS WERE PROCESSED U/S 143(1) THE REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE ON THE CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH IS NOT PERM ITTED UNDER THE LAW. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FIRST GROUND IN APPEALS IS A LLOWED. SINCE THE REOPENING HAS BEEN HELD TO BE NOT LEGAL AND ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN QUASHED. THEREFORE, OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL DO NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION AND APPEALS HAS BEEN DECIDED ON LEGAL ISSU E ONLY WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE MERITS. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 12. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAPO YADAV) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 26.7.2013. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ITA NO2933,2935&1763/DEL/11-12 11 (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING 23.7.2013 DATE OF DICTATION 23.7.2013 DATE OF TYPING 23.7.2013 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY 26.7.2013 BOTH THE MEMBERS & PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET 26.7.2013 & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.