Jansampark Advertising & Marketing P.Ltd, Delhi V. ITO, Ward-4(2) (Now Ward-13(2), New Delhi

ITA 3132/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9081 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIMA BARNWAL
• Keywords: Gift; Principle of natural justice; Tangible material; Accommodation entries; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.-3132/DEL/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING P. LTD., C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), NEW DELHI. PAN NO. AAACJ9115G APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SH. KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY MS. ANIMA BARNWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 06/08/2021 PRONOUNCEMENT ON: 12/08/2021 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, DELHI (LD. CIT(A)) IN THE CASE OF M/S JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING AND MARKETING (P) LTD (THE ASSESSEE), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, ASSESSEE PREFERRED THI S APPEAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS COULD BE CULLED OUT F ROM THE RECORD ARE THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, ASSESSEE FILE D THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 1/11/2004 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.3,180/-; THA T CLAIMING TO HAVE 2 RECEIVED SPECIFIC INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WI NG OF THE DEPARTMENT, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INDULGED IN RECEIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AMOUNTI NG TO RS. 51 LACS IS BOGUS AND REPRESENTS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME/INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH WAS NOT OFFER ED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, STATING THAT THE INCOME OF RS. 51 LACS CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 18/4/2007. ASSESSEE FILED THE COPY OF RETURN THAT WAS ALREADY FILED ON 1/11/2004. AFTER HEARING THE A SSESSEE, AN ADDITION OF RS. 71 LAKH WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED C REDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) AND A SUM OF RS. 1.42 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AT 2% IN RESPECT OF THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. 3. ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND WHILE CHALLENGING THE ADDITION ON MERITS, ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 148 IS BAD IN LAW SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 148 OF THE ACT INASMUCH AS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF MERE INTERNAL OFFICE NOTE, WITHOUT RECORDING REASONS AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO N EXUS BETWEEN THE ALLEGED REASONS AND THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED. 4. BY ORDER DATED 26/10/2009 LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON MERITS, AND AS A CONSEQ UENCE THEREOF THE GROUNDS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING WERE DISMISSED AS 3 INFRUCTUOUS. REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, BY ORDER D ATED 14/6/2013 IN ITA NO. 4839/DEL/2009 AND CO NO. 103/DEL/2011 UPHELD TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND ALSO DISMISSED THE CROSS OBJECTIONS HOLDING IT TO BE INFRUCTUOUS. FURTHER APPEAL WAS PR EFERRED BY REVENUE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHILE DISPOSING OF THE REVENUE APPEAL REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION FIRST TO DECIDE THE OBJECTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING PROCEEDIN GS. PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT, LD. CIT(A) PA SSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 28/10/2016 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WHILE HOL DING BOTH THE REOPENING AND THE ADDITION AS VALID. HENCE THIS APP EAL BEFORE US, BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IT IS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT W AS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE REASONS RECORDED WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE REASONS SUPPL IED TO THE ASSESSEE DO NOT CONTAIN ANY DETAILS AS TO THE TRANSACTION, HO W RS. 51 LACS WAS TREATED AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT COULD BE DISCERNIBLE, THERE ARE NO CLUES AS TO THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION, THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY RETURN FILED EARLIER, TH ERE IS NO ANNEXURES/STATEMENTS/REPORT ENCLOSED WITH THE REASO NS, BREAK UP OF FIGURE OF RS. 51 LACS IS NOT TO BE FOUND, THERE IS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL MUCH LESS THE LIVELINK BETWEEN THE REASONS AND THE ADDIT ION SO ON AND SO FORTH. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) LOOKED INT O THIS ASPECT, ADVERT TO THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE BY LETTER DATE D 11/7/2008 AND ALSO THE REASONS TO BE FOUND IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AT PAGE NO. 30, BUT 4 RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE REASONS WERE PROPERLY R ECORDED, THE COMMUNICATION OF REASONS WAS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE A T THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, EVEN IN THE SUBSEQUENT APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS, RAISING ANY OBJECTION TO THE REASONS RECORDED ARE TO THE SUFFIC IENCY OF MATERIAL, BASED ON WHICH THE REOPENING WAS DONE. HE, THEREFOR E, ARGUED THAT, INASMUCH AS THE REASONS RECORDED WERE NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT THAT FOLLOWED BASING ON SUCH LAPSE IS VI TIATED. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF WIMCO SEEDLINGS LTD VS. JCIT (WIMCO SEEDLIN GS), IN ITA NO. 2755, 2756, 2757/DEL/2002 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989- 90 TO 1991-92 BY ORDER DATED DATED22/06/2020. 6. PER CONTRA, IT IS THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RE VENUE THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE REASONS RECORDED AND THE REASONS S UPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT IN THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSE E ARE ONLY CONCISE OR A BRIDGE ONES AND NO PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO THE ASSE SSEE, AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT A GROUND TO VITIATE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON EITHER SIDE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT TH E REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE ARE CONDENSED ONES AND SUCH REASONS RE AD,- 'THAT ASSESSEE HAS INDULGED IN RECEIVING ACCOMMODAT ION ENTRIES AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNTED TO RS.51, 00,000/- IS BOGUS AND REPRESENTS UNDISCLOSED INCOME NOT OFFERED TO TA X IN THE RETURN FILED .' WHEREAS THE DETAILED REASONS RECORDED AND FOUND BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 30 OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, READ AS UNDER:- 5 'INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATI ON WING OF IT DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI REGARDING BENEFICIARIES AND O PERATORS OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN DELHI. IN THE SAID INFORMATION, IT HAS BEEN INTER ALIA REP ORTED AS UNDER:- 'ENTRIES ARE BROADLY TAKEN FOR TWO PURPOSES 1. TO PLOUGH BACK UNACCOUNTED BLACK MONEY FOR THE PUR POSE OF BUSINESS OR FOR PERSONAL NEEDS SUCH AS PURCHASE OF ASSETS ETC., IN THE FORM OF GIFTS, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, LOANS ETC. 2. TO INFLATE EXPENSES IN THE TRADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SO AS TO REDUCE THE REAL PROFITS AND THEREBY PAY LESS TAXES. THE SPECIFIC, INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE INVESTIGA TION WING OF IT DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI IS ENCLOSED AS PER ANNEXURE. IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION RECEIVED AS ABO VE FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF TT DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI, I HAVE SUFFICIENT REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY M/S. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISI NG & MARKETING (P) LTD. HAS INDULGED IN RECEIVING ACCOMMODATION EN TRIES AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AMOUNTING TO RS. 51,00,000/- IS BOGUS AND REPRESENTS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME/INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WHICH HA S NOT BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE IN IS RETURN FILED. ACCORDINGLY, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME O F RS. 31,00,000/- CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AS THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY HAS UNDERSTATED ITS RETURNED INCOME FOR THE A Y 2004-05 BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 51,00,000/-.' 8. A READING OF THE ABOVE CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT THE VERY SAME REAS ONS RECORDED AND FOUND IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. ALIENATION OF THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE IS THAT IT GAVE FEW EXTRACTS OF THE REASONS TO THEM TO DEFEND IT AGAINST THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND WHEN CO RNERED BEFORE THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES, THE REVENUE COMES OUT WITH THE DETAILED REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND SUCH FURNISH ING OF A BRIDGE OR PART OF REASONS IS DEPRECATED BY HIGHER FORUMS AS RECORD ED BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF WIMCO SEEDLIN GS (SUPRA). 6 9. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS WE THINK NECESSARY TO EXTRACT THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN TH E CASE OF WIMCO SEEDLINGS, WHICH IS AN AS UNDER: 27. ON PERUSAL OF ABOVE TWO STATEMENTS (ONE) THE REASON S SUPPLIED IT TO THE ASSESSEE AND (TWO) THE REASONS SOME BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, IT IS APPARENT THAT BOTH ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT. IT IS NOT DENIED THAT IN CONTEXT AND IN SUBSTANCE THEY ARE SAME BUT THERE SH OULD BE SAME AD VERBATIM. IT CANNOT BE THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT IT GIVES FEW EXTRACTS OF THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE TO DEFEND IT AGAINST THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND WHEN CORNERED BEFORE THE HIGHER AUTH ORITIES, THE REVENUE COMES OUT WITH THE DETAILED REASONS RECORDE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE THE COMPLETE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT TO FACILITATE THE ASSESSEE TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. TO KEEP FEW ARROWS IN ITS QUIVER AND ON LY DISCLOSING FEW ARROWS OUT OF THAT IS NOT EXPECTED FROM A REVENUE O FFICER. IT ALSO AGAINST THE FAIR PLAY RULE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO V COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 308 I TR 38 [ DELHI] THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE. AS PER PARA NO 4 FOLLOWING R EASONS WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE:- 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SUPPLI ED THE REASONS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 148 OF THE SAID ACT DATED MARCH 29, 2004, SOMETIME IN SEPTEMBE R, 2004. THE REASONS WHICH WERE SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER I N SEPTEMBER, 2004 WERE AS UNDER : ' M/S. HARYANA ACRYLIC MFG. CO. PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 REASONS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. RETURN OF INCOME IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON NOVEMBER 30, 1998 DECLARING NIL INCOME. ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143( 3) WAS COMPLETED AT NIL INCOME ON MARCH 7, 2001. IT HAS CO ME TO THE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS TAKEN ACCOMMOD ATION ENTRIES FROM ONE OF THE COMPANIES OF SH. SANJAY RAS TOGI, I.E., HALLMARK HELATHCARE LIMITED, VIDE CHEQUE NO. 201845 DATED OCTOBER 17, 1997, AMOUNTING TO RS.5,00,000 DURING T HE YEAR 7 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. I HAVE REA SON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5,00,000 HAS E SCAPED ASSESSMENT. AS SUCH, AFTER OBTAINING THE APPROVAL O F CIT (C)- II TO REOPEN THE CASE, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT IS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. (SD) . . . . . . . 29-3-2004 ACIT, CC-18, NEW DELHI.' 28. IT WAS FURTHER PLEADED BEFORE HONOURABLE COURT THAT :- 16. LASTLY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN THE COUNTER-AF FIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS THE REASONS WHICH HAD BEEN INDICATE D FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 WERE EN TIRELY DIFFERENT TO THE REASONS WHICH HAD BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER. THE ATTENTION OF THIS COURT WAS DRAWN T O PARAGRAPH 5(D) OF THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THE TRUE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE A. ANNEXURE A PURPORTS TO BE A FORM FOR RECORDING THE REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UN DER SECTION 148 AND FOR OBTAINING APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX. SERIAL NO. 11 OF THE FORM PERTAINS TO ' REASON S FOR THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT' . UNDER THIS HE ADING, THE FOLLOWING IS RECORDED : 17. IT IS APPARENT BY COMPARING THESE PURPORTED REA SONS WITH THE REASONS EXTRACTED EARLIER AND WHICH HAD BEEN SU PPLIED TO THE PETITIONER THAT THE TWO ARE DIFFERENT. WHILE IN THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER THERE IS NO MENTION OF T HE ALLEGATION THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS, IN THE REASONS SHOWN IN THE SAID FORM IN ANNEXURE A TO THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT, THERE IS A SPECIFIC ALLEGATION THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF TH E ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS RELATIN G TO ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES RAISED FROM ONE OF THE COMPAN IES OF SH. SANJAY RASTOGI TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5,00,000. IN TH IS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED THAT T HE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARE VITIATED INASMUCH AS THE REASONS WH ICH WERE SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER WERE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT , ACCORDING TO THE RESPONDENTS, WERE THE ' TRUE' REASONS. THERE FORE, WHAT WAS SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER CANNOT BE REGARDED A S THE 8 REASONS AND THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF FILING OF OBJECTI ONS TO THOSE PURPORTED REASONS AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED MARC H 2, 2005, WOULD BE IN RESPECT OF SOMETHING WHICH, EVEN AS PER THE RESPONDENTS, WERE NOT THE TRUE REASONS. CONSEQUENTL Y, THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS LEADING UP TO THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED MARCH 2, 2005, HAVE TO BE SET ASIDE. 29. THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT RESPONDED TO THE ABOVE AN OMALY WHERE THE REASONS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ARE ALTOGET HER DIFFERENT THEN THE REASONS GIVEN TO THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES WHEN TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CHALLENGED, AS UNDER:- 30. THE MATTER, HOWEVER, DOES NOT END HERE. WE HAV E MENTIONED ABOVE THAT THE STAND TAKEN BY THE RESPOND ENTS IN THEIR COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THIS COURT IS THAT T HE ' ACTUAL' REASONS RECORDED ARE THOSE RECORDED IN THE FORM FOR RECORDING REASONS, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN FILED AS ANNEXURE A TO THE SAID COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT. IT WAS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE RE SPONDENTS THAT THE ' REASONS FOR THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT' AT SERIAL NO. 11 OF THE SAID FORM CLEARLY CARRIES T HE ALLEGATION THAT ' THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS RELATING TO ACCOMMODAT ION ENTRIES' . THIS BEING THE CASE, IT WAS SUBMITTED, THE BAR OF T AKING ACTION WITHIN FOUR YEARS WOULD NOT APPLY AND, CONSEQUENTLY , THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS VALID. 31. THIS ARGUMENT SUFFERS FROM SEVERAL INFIRMITIES. FIRST OF ALL, THE RESPONDENTS CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO GLOSS OVER THE F ACT THAT THE REASONS WHICH WERE SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE REASONS PURPORTEDLY RECORDED IN THE SAID FORM O N WHICH THEY NOW SEEK TO RELY. IF THE REASONS IN THE SAID FORM W ERE THE ' ACTUAL' REASONS, WHY WERE THEY NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER? WHY WAS NOTHING SAID ABOUT THESE REASON S (NOTED IN THE FORM) WHEN THE PETITIONER FILED ITS OBJECTIONS TO THE REASONS WHICH WERE SUPPLIED TO IT? IT MUST BE REMEMBERED TH AT IN ITS OBJECTIONS, THE PETITIONER TOOK THE SPECIFIC PLEA T HAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ALLEGATION THAT THE PETITIONER HAD F AILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTI ON TO ISSUE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND INITIATE ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSES SMENT YEAR. DESPITE THIS PRECISE OBJECTION, THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE REASONS NOTED IN THE SAID FORM IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED MARCH 2, 9 2005. IF THE RESPONDENTS HAD REGARDED THE REASONS N OTED IN THE SAID FORM TO BE THE ' ACTUAL' REASONS, IT WOULD HAV E BEEN VERY EASY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE COUNTERED TH IS OBJECTION BY SIMPLY REFERRING TO THE REASONS NOTED IN THE FORM A ND SAYING THAT THE ALLEGATION OF FAILURE TO DISCLOSE IS VERY MUCH THERE. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE REASONS NOTED IN THE SAID FORM WER E NEVER REGARDED AS THE REASONS FOR INITIATING ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE SAID ACT. THUS, THE RESPONDENTS CANNOT NOW BE P ERMITTED TO FALL BACK ON THOSE PURPORTED REASONS NOTED IN THE S AID FORM. 32. SECONDLY, LET US ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMEN T THAT THE ' ACTUAL' REASONS WERE THOSE AS NOTED IN THE SAID FOR M. THEN WHY DID THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMMUNICATE A DIFFERENT S ET OF REASONS TO THE PETITIONER? DID HE THINK THAT THE SUPPLYING OF REASONS AND THE INVITING OF OBJECTIONS WERE MERE CHARADES? DID HE THINK THAT IT WAS A MERE PRETENCE OR A FORMALITY WHICH HAD TO BE GOTTEN OVER WITH? AT THIS POINT, IT WOULD BE WELL TO REMEM BER THAT THE SUPREME COURT IN G. K. N. DRIVESHAFTS [2003] 259 IT R19 HAD SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THAT WHEN A NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 148 OF THE SAID ACT IS ISSUED AND THE NOTICEE FILES A RETURN A ND SEEKS REASONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS BOUND TO FURNISH REASONS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. ON RECEIP T OF THE REASONS, THE NOTICEE IS ENTITLED TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO DISPOS E OF THE SAME BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. THESE ARE SPECIFIC DIR ECTIONS GIVEN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN ALL CASES WHERE NOTICES UND ER SECTION 148 OF THE SAID ACT ARE ISSUED. SURELY, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE CONSTRUED THESE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS TO BE A MERE EMPTY FORMALITIES OR DEAD LETTERS? THERE IS A STRONG LOGI C AND PURPOSE BEHIND THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT A ND THAT IS TO PREVENT HIGH-HANDEDNESS ON THE PART OF ASSESSING OF FICERS AND TO TEMPER ANY ACTION CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE SAID ACT BY REASON AND SUBSTANCE. IN FACT, EVEN SECTION 148(2) STIPULATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, BEFORE ISSUING ANY NOTICE UNDER THE SAID SECTION, RECORD HIS REASONS F OR DOING SO. THE SUPREME COURT HAS ONLY CARRIED FORWARD THIS MANDATO RY REQUIREMENT BY DIRECTING THAT THE REASONS WHICH ARE RECORDED BE COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN A REASONABLE PE RIOD OF TIME SO THAT AT THAT STAGE ITSELF THE ASSESSEE MAY POINT OUT ANY OBJECTIONS THAT HE MAY HAVE WITH REGARD TO THE INIT IATION OF ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE SAID ACT. THE REQUI REMENT OF RECORDING THE REASONS, COMMUNICATING THE SAME TO TH E ASSESSEE, ENABLING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE OBJECTIONS AND THE RE QUIREMENT OF 10 PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER ARE ALL DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT REOPEN ASSESSMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN FINALIZED ON HIS MERE WHIM OR FANCY AND THAT HE DOE S SO ONLY ON THE BASIS OF LAWFUL REASONS. THESE STEPS ARE ALSO D ESIGNED TO ENSURE COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY AND ADHERENCE TO THE P RINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THUS, A DEVIATION FROM THESE DIREC TIONS WOULD ENTAIL THE NULLIFYING OF THE PROCEEDINGS. ASSUMING AS WE HAVE DONE THAT THE ' ACTUAL' REASONS WERE THOSE AS NOTED IN THE SAID FORM, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE REASONS WERE NEVER COM MUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER AND IT IS ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE COURSE OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION THAT THOSE ' REASONS' HAVE SU RFACED. THEREFORE, IF HE PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT T HE ' ACTUAL' REASONS WERE THOSE AS NOTED IN THE SAID FORM, THE P ROPER COURSE OF ACTION AS DIRECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN G. K. N. DRIVESHAFTS [2003] 259 ITR 19 , HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED. IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE REASONS WHICH WERE SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER WERE NOT THE ACTUAL REASONS AND THE OBJECTIONS WHICH WERE TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER WERE NOT TO THE ACTUAL REASONS AND THE SPEAKING ORD ER DATED MARCH 2, 2005, WHICH WAS PASSED WAS ALSO NEITHER ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL REASONS NOR THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ACTUAL REASONS. THE ENTIRE PROCESS WOULD BE A SHAM AND WOULD AMOUNT TO MAKING A MOCKERY OF THE LAW AS SETTLED BY THE SUPREME COURT. THEREFORE, FOR THIS REASON ALSO, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AS WELL AS ALL PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT THERETO AS ALSO THE ORDER DA TED MARCH 2, 2005, ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 30. AS BEFORE US ALSO THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER PRODUCED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT ARE QUITE DIFFERENT AND NUMBER EIGHT WHEREAS THE EXTRACT GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE WAS MERELY OF TWO PARAGRAPHS. IN VIEW OF THIS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND HENCE THEY ARE QUASHED. THE O RDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UPHOLDING OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ARE REVERSED. THUS ALL THE THREE ASSESSM ENT YEARS REOPENING PROCEEDINGS ARE HELD TO BE INVALID AND QUASHED. 10. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT THE SETTLED POSITI ON OF LAW ON THIS ASPECT, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF H ARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 308 ITR 38 [ DELHI] IS THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING THE REASONS, COMM UNICATING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE, ENABLING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE OBJE CTIONS AND THE 11 REQUIREMENT OF PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER ARE ALL DES IGNED TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT REOPEN ASSESSMENTS W HICH HAVE BEEN FINALIZED ON HIS MERE WHIM OR FANCY AND THAT HE DOE S SO ONLY ON THE BASIS OF LAWFUL REASONS, AND SINCE THESE STEPS ARE ALSO D ESIGNED TO ENSURE COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY AND ADHERENCE TO THE PRINCIPL ES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, ANY DEVIATION FROM THESE DIRECTIONS WOULD ENTAIL TH E NULLIFYING OF THE PROCEEDINGS. 11. ADMITTEDLY IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE REASONS SUP PLIED TO THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT THE SAME AND VERBATIM. IN VIEW OF THIS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE LINE OF DECIS ION IN HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO V COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 308 I TR 38 [ DELHI] BY THE HIGHER FORUM REFERRED TO IN THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF WIMCO SEEDLINGS (SUPRA ), WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING OF PROCEEDING S UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE SAME. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021. SD/- SD/- (N.K.BILLAIYA) (K. NARSIMHA CHA RY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12/08/2021