THE ACIT CEN CIR-13, MUMBAI V. SHRI AMITABH BACHAN, MUMBAI

ITA 2994/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7474 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 30-12-2009
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K PAHWA
• Assessee Lawyers: DI LIP J THAKKAR
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Bonafide belief; Source of fund; Difference of opinion; Revised return; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 69C; 40A(3); 143(3); 147; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, (JM) AND SHRI A.L. GEHL OT ,(AM) ITA NO.2994/MUM/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-13 11 TH FLOOR, OLD CGO BLDG. ANNEXE M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. ..( APPELLANT ) VS. SHRI AMITABH BACHCHAN PRATIKSHA, N.S. ROAD NO.10 JUHU JVPD SCHEME MUMBAI-400 049. ..( RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO. (AACPB 9226 B) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. PAHWA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DI LIP J. THAKKAR AND SHRI RAJESH P. SHAH O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL (JM). THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 18.2.2008 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. ITA NO.2994/M/08 A.Y:02-03 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A CINE ARTIST, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NET TOTAL INCOME OF RS.14,19,92,580/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(THE ACT) ON THE SAME INCOME. SUBSEQ UENTLY THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,11,45,120/- WHEREIN CLAIM OF ESTIMATED EXPENSES @ 3 0% AMOUNTING TO RS.6,31,78,584/- WAS MADE. LATER ON, TH E ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 13.3.2004 WITHDREW THE REVISED RET URN ALONGWITH CLAIM OF EXPENSES @ 30% FOR THE REASONS THAT THE ESTIMATED CLAIM OF EXPENSES @ 30% WAS MADE UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF T HAT THE SAID ESTIMATED EXPENSES ARE LEGAL AND ALLOWABLE, HOWEVER DUE TO NO N-AVAILABILITY OF STAFFS AND MY PRE-ENGAGEMENT IT SHALL NOT BE FEASIBLE TO S UBSTANTIATE THE SAID ESTIMATED EXPENSES AS CLAIMED, THEREFORE THE RE-REV ISED RETURN FILED ON 31.03.2003 IS WITHDRAWN. ON 29.3.2005, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.56,41,59,422/- BY MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF KBC SHOW AND DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80RR. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 OF THE ACT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT DATED 5.4.2006 AFTER RECORDING REASONS WHICH ARE REFER RED IN PARA-3 OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AS FOLLOWS : 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED RETURN CLAIMING ESTIMATE D EXPENSES @ 30% ON THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS, BASED ON ADHOC ESTIMATED EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE INSURANCE ITA NO.2994/M/08 A.Y:02-03 3 AGENTS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT PROVE CERTAIN EXPENSES B EING INCURRED TO PERSUADE THE INSURERS. HOWEVER, WHEN TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE THESE EXPEN SES AS WELL AS SOURCES FOR MAKING THESE EXPENSES, THE CLAI M WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT FURNISHING THE DE TAILS REGARDING SOURCES FOR INCURRING THESE EXPENSES. FR OM THIS IT APPEARS THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED O UT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WHICH REQUIRED FURTHER VERIFICA TION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 69 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT. FURTHER THERE ARE CERTAIN ISSUES FOR VERIFICATION L IKE :- (I) APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 40A(3) IN RESPECT OF CASH/JOURNAL EXPENSES. (II) PERSONAL ELEMENT IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE EXPENSES CLAIMED. (III) PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE EXACTLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFESSION OR NOT. (IV) BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT EXAMINED. (V) ASSESSEE MAINTAINED 7 BANK ACCOUNTS, BUT DETAILS IN RESPECT OF 6 BANK ACCOUNTS WERE FURNISHED. DETAILS IN RESPECT OF S.B. A/C. NO.107456 WITH S.B.I. WERE NEITHER PROVIDED NOR CALLED FOR BY THE A.O WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS FROM EEL/STAR TV ETC. (VI) RECEIPTS OF DIVIDEND FROM VITHAL NAGAR CO-OP. SOCIETY WITH REFERENCE TO INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY. (VII) SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS IN SAVING BANK A/C. NO.11155. (VIII) DISTRIBUTION INCOME FROM M/S. ETHNIC ENTERPRISES. (IX) DEPOSITS IN S.B. A/C. NO.11155 UNDER THE HEAD RECEIPTS ON BEHALF OF MRS. JAYA BACHCHAN. THE AO AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO T HE ASSESSEE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, COM PLETED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.20,05,52,504/- INCL UDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES RS.3,08,045/- AND UNEX PLAINED ITA NO.2994/M/08 A.Y:02-03 4 EXPENDITURE U/S.69C RS.6,31,78,584/-, VIDE ORDER DAT ED 31.12.2007 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDI NG U/S.147 AND CONSEQUENT COMPLETION OF RE-ASSESSMENT AND ALSO THE ADDITIO NS MADE BY THE AO. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE RELYING ON CERTAIN DECISIONS WH EREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF T HE ASSESSEE AND RE- ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION, ANNULLED THE ASSE SSMENT VIDE PARA-5.9 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 5.9 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE POSITI ON OF LAW, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WRON GLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLIED IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS FOR HIM TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S.148. ACCORDINGLY, THE RE-OPENING AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THUS, THE NOTICE AS WELL AS THE CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ARE HELD TO BE ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND VOID. IN MAY ALSO BE STATED HERE THAT ON SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CA SE OF THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT, SMT. JAYA BACHCHAN, ON THE S AME SET OF FACTS AND POSITION OF LAW, THE UNDERSIGNED H AD ANNULLED THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE APPEAL ORDE R NO. CIT(A)/C-VII/DCCC-13/IT-156/06-7 DATED 19.10.2007. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF S UCH NOTICE IS, HEREBY ANNULLED. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US TAKING FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL. ITA NO.2994/M/08 A.Y:02-03 5 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAD WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION IN TERMS O F SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND THEREBY ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HOLDING THE SAME TO BE ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND VOI D, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SUFFICIENT REASON TO BELIEVE AND THERE WAS NO CHANGE OF OPINION INASMUCH AS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS EXAMINING THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENSES AND NOT THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 69C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE APPELLANT 3. THE APPELLANT . 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT FOR THE REASONS AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE PLEA TAKEN IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ANNUL LING THE ASSESSMENT. HE THEREFORE, SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO BE RESTORED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, A T THE OUTSET, SUBMITS THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS DIRECTLY COVERE D BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE'S WIFE IN A CIT VS. SMT. JAYA BACHAN IN ITA NOS.2714 & 2995/MUM/2008 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002-03 DATED 20.8.2009 AND ACIT V S. SHRI ABHISHEK BACHCHAN IN ITA NOS.2713 & 4275/MUM/2008 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002-03 DATED 27.1.2010. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDERS OF THE TRIB UNAL . 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RI VAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR INITIATING RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CLEARLY SH OWS THAT ITA NO.2994/M/08 A.Y:02-03 6 THERE IS NO NEW MATERIAL WHICH HAS COME TO THE KNOWLEDG E OF THE AO AFTER PASSING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF EST IMATED EXPENDITURE OF 30% OF THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS WAS SUBJE CT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION BY THE AO WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION FROM THE TOTAL PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS, BUT LATE R ON WITHDREW VIDE LETTER DATED 13.3.2004. IT IS ONLY AFTER CONSIDE RING THE SAME, THE AO PASSED ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT A CCEPTING INTERALIA THE DISALLOWANCE OF 30% EXPENSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE SAID E XPENSES OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME JUSTIFYING INVOCATION O F PROVISION OF SEC.69C OF THE ACT. IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING RE-ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 8. WITH REGARD TO THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON T HE OTHER ISSUES FOR VERIFICATION AS MENTIONED IN PARA 3(I) TO (IX ) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REPRODUCED AS ABOVE WE FIND TH AT THE AO HAS INITIATED PROCEEDING U/S.147 OF THE ACT ONLY FOR VERIF ICATION. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANY OMISSIO N OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY AL L MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ITA NO.2994/M/08 A.Y:02-03 7 SUCH OMISSION OR FAILURE LEADING TO AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOM E IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE OBJECT OF SEC. 147 IS NOT TO MAK E A ROVING OR FISHING ENQUIRY. IN IBM WORLD TRADE CORPORATION VS. N .D. BHATT, IAC (1982) 138 ITR 742(BOM.), IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AND H ELD (AT PAGE 743 HEADNOTE) THAT : WHEN RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE COMMENCED IT I S OPEN TO THE ITO TO RE-COMPUTE THE ASSESSMENT OF ALL ITEMS THAT WERE EARLIER CONCLUDED, BUT THAT DOES NO T NECESSARILY GIVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO THE ITO TO MA KE A ROVING AND FISHING ENQUIRY....... RECENTLY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BATRA BHATTA COMPANY ( 2010) 321 ITR 526(DEL.) IT HAS BEEN HELD (AT PAGE 527 HEADNOTE): .THE EXPRESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIR ES MUCH DEEPER SCRUTINY INDICATED THAT HE WAS EMBARKI NG ON A MERE EXPLORATION WITHOUT ANY BELIEF, MUCH LESS A BELIEF BASED ON REASON AND MATERIALS. THUS, THE RE - ASSESSMENT WAS NOT VALID. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE AO IN THE GARB OF RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT WANTS TO VERIFY OR REVIEW CERTAIN ISSUES WHICH IS NOT PER MISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 9. RECENTLY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. KELV INATOR OF INDIA LTD. (2010) 320 ITR 561 AFTER CONSIDERING THE P RE-AMENDED PROVISIONS AND POST AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 W. E.F. 1.4.1989 HAS OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER (PLACITUM-6 AT PAGE-564 OF THE ITR): ON GOING THROUGH THE CHANGES, QUOTED ABOVE, MADE T O SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT, PRIOR TO THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987, REOPENING COULD BE ITA NO.2994/M/08 A.Y:02-03 8 DONE UNDER THE ABOVE TWO CONDITIONS AND FULFILLMENT OF THE SAID CONDITIONS ALONE CONFERRED JURISDICTION ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A BACK ASSESSMENT, BUT IN SECTION 147 OF THE ACT (WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL, 1989), THEY ARE GIVEN A GO-BY AND ONLY ONE CONDITION HAS REMAINED, VIZ., THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T, CONFERS JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, POST-1 ST APRIL, 1989, POWER TO REOPEN IS MUCH WIDER. HOWEVER, ONE NEEDS TO GIVE A SCHEMATIC INTERPRETATION TO THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE FAI LING WHICH, WE ARE AFRAID, SECTION 147 WOULD GIVE ARBITR ARY POWERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN ASSESSMEN TS ON THE BASIS OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION, WHICH CANNOT BE PER SE REASON TO REOPEN. WE MUST ALSO KEEP IN MIND THE CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POWER TO REVIEW AND P OWER TO REASSESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW; HE HAS THE POWER TO REASSESS. BUT REASSESS MENT HAS TO BE BASED ON FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN PRECONDIT IONS AND IF THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINION IS REMOVED, A S CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT, THEN, IN THE GARB OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, REVIEW WOULD TAKE PLAC E. ONE MUST TREAT THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINION A S AN IN-BUILT TEST TO CHECK ABUSE OF POWER BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. HENCE, AFTER 1 ST APRIL, 1989, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POWER TO REOPEN, PROVIDED THERE IS TANGIBLE MA TERIAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT. REASONS MUST HAVE A LIVE LINK WITH THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF.. 10. IN ACIT VS. SMT. JAYA BACHCHAN(SUPRA), THE TRIBUN AL HAS HELD VIDE PARA-10 OF ITS ORDER DATED 20.8.2009 AS UNDER : 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WHO RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DOSE NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. AS RIGHTLY HELD BY LEARNED CIT(A) INITIATION OF REASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION. PERUSA L OF THE REASON RECORDED FOR INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO NEW MATE RIAL WHICH HAS COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER AFTER PASSING OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE ASSESSME NT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT WHEN THE O RIGINAL ITA NO.2994/M/08 A.Y:02-03 9 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) O F THE ACT, THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATED EXPENDI TURE OF 30% OF THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPT WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSE E FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME MAKING CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF ESTIMATED EXPENSES BY 30% OF THE TOTAL PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW THIS CLAIM IN HER L ETTER DATED 13.3.2004. REASONS FOR SUCH WITHDRAWAL WAS EXPLAINED IN LETTER DATED 13.3.2004. IT IS ONLY AFT ER CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORIGINAL ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, INCOME AS DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS ULTIMATELY ACCEPTED. IT THUS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICERS BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURR ED EXPENSES OF 30% AND THAT THOSE EXPENSES WERE MET BY THE ASSESSEE FROM AND OUT OF HER UNDISCLOSED SOURCE S OF INCOME. THERE WAS THEREFORE NO PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL JUSTIFYING INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69-C OF THE ACT. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE ON CHAN GE OF OPINION. INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS ALSO BAD FOR THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL BASED ON WHICH, IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CHARG EABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. WE THEREFORE HOLD TH AT LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ANNULLING ASSESSMENT U/ S. 147 OF THE ACT. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2001-02 IS THEREFORE UPHELD AND THE REVENUES APPEAL IN THIS R EGARD IS DISMISSED. 11. THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO BEEN FO LLOWED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. ABHISHE K BACHCHAN (SUPRA). 12. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGH T ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AUTHORIT ATIVE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND THE CONSIST ENT VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL(SUPRA), HOLD THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN INITIATING ITA NO.2994/M/08 A.Y:02-03 10 PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY WE ARE INCL INED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT IS ANNULLED. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 13. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.3.2010 SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) ( D.K. AGARWAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 19.3.2010. JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 12.3.10 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 15.3.10 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 19.3.10 SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 23.3.10 SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER