RBJ Infratech P.Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-20(3), New Delhi

ITA 3152/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0316 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESH SINGH
• Keywords: Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Competent authority; Assessment record; Right to appeal; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(2); 153C; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 3152/DEL/2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-10 M/S RBJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD., B-14/C, FIRST FLOOR, FREEDOM FIGHTERS ENCLAVE, NEB SARAI, NEW DELHI-110068 AND RAJESH JAIN & ASSOCIATES, 49, PUSHPANJALI, VIKAS MARG EXTN. DELHI-110092 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-20(3), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAECR0664G ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAJESH JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : SH. RAMESH SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 06.11.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.12.2020 ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI DATED 15 .03.2018. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS.50,00,920/- AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.920/-. THE ADDITION O F RS.50,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ILLEGAL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT (A) DI D NOT CONSIDER JUDICIALLY THE EVIDENCES PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 3152/DEL/2018 RBJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 2 2. THAT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147/143(3) OF THE ACT IS ILLEGAL AND VOID. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER ERRED IN ISSUING ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, DATED 31 ST MARCH 2016, WHEREAS THE PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 29.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PAGE NO.2. NO REASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT, DATE D 31.03.2016, WHICH WAS DULY COMPLIED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 28.04.2016. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 21.12.2016, ARE ILLEGAL, VOID AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT SUPPLY REASONS TO BELIEVE FOR INITIATING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT AFTER FURNISHING RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 5. THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT INITIATED BY THE LEARNED A.O BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WITHOUT RECORDING PROPER REASONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL AND HENCE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 6. VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE, INADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY, NO CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES OF THE REVENUE MADE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT NULL AND VOID. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, OTHERWISE ALSO THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147 OF THE ACT ARE ILLEGA L AS THE REASONS TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER TH E LAW, WERE THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS U/S 132(1), FROM SOME S.K. JAIN AND HIS BROTHER AND DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED IN WHICH THE ALLEGED HAND WRITTEN DOCUMENTS OF SUBSCRIBING SHARE CAPITAL ETC. HAVE BEEN FOUND AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN PASTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SAID TO HAVE BEEN RELATED/REFERABLE TO THE APPELLANT, & THEREFORE, THE CORRECT PROVISION OF TH E ITA NO. 3152/DEL/2018 RBJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 3 ACT IN WHICH PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVOKED, AS PER LAW, WAS SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WHICH IS SPECIFIC & CONTAINS NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE FOR OTHE R SECTIONS OF THE ACT UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE LEGAL JURISDICTIONAL GROUND, OTHERWISE, ALSO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN TREATING THE SHARE APPLICATION MON EY RECEIVED TO THE TUNE OF RS.50,00,000/- FROM VARIOUS CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AS ESCAPED INCOME WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, AS QUASI JUDICIAL OFFICER. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE PROCEEDINGS U/S- 147 OF THE ACT INITIATED B Y THE LEARNED A.O. IS ILLEGAL AS THE SAME HAS BEEN INITIATED MECHANICALLY SIMPLY FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING, WITHOUT INDEPENDENTLY APPLYING HIS MIND ON THE FACTS, AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TOTALLY ILLEG AL AND HENCE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS ILLEGA L, UNLAWFUL, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND AND WITHOUT BEING OBJECTIVELY SATISFIED U/S 151 OF THE ACT BY PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 3. THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS CONTRA RY TO LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS CASE, WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. 4. THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED PURELY LEGAL ISSUE, NOT INVOLVING ANY FRESH INVESTIGATION INTO FACTS, WHICH ARE ALREADY ON THE RECORD. THE AFORESA ID LEGAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE BEING RAISED AS THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ADVISED CORRECT POSITION OF LAW NOW. FURTHER, THE OMISSION TO RAISE THE SAID GROUND S OF APPEAL IN NOT WILLFUL. THE APPELLANT RELY ON THE DECISION OF HON. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. 299 ITR 393 (S.C.). ITA NO. 3152/DEL/2018 RBJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 4 4. ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND HAS BEEN OPPO SED IN PRINCIPLE BY THE LD. DR. KEEPING IN VIEW, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS CIT (199 8) 229 ITR 383, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED . THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT IS AS UNDER: 5. UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AFTER GIVING BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREO N AS IT THINKS FIT. THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DEALING WI TH APPEALS IS THUS EXPRESSED IN THE WIDEST POSSIBLE TERMS. THE PU RPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TAXING AUTHOR ITIES IS TO ASSESS CORRECTLY THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSE E IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF, FOR EXAMPLE, AS A RESULT O F A JUDICIAL DECISION GIVEN WHILE THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL, IT IS FOUND THAT A NON-TAXABLE ITEM IS TA XED OR A PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION IS DENIED, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON WHY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM RAISING T HAT QUESTION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME, SO LONG AS THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE ON RECORD IN RESPECT OF THAT ITE M. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO RESTRICT THE POWER OF THE TRI BUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 ONLY TO DECIDE THE GROUNDS WHICH ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A PPEALS). BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT HAVE A RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL/CROSS-OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . WE FAIL TO SEE WHY THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM CONSI DERING QUESTIONS OF LAW ARISING IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED EARLIER. 6. IN THE CASE OF JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. V. C.I.T. . THIS COURT, WHILE DEALING WITH THE POWERS OF THE APPELLA TE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OBSERVED THAT AN APPELLATE A UTHORITY HAS ALL THE POWERS WHICH THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY MAY HAVE IN DECIDING THE QUESTION BEFORE IT SUBJECT TO THE REST RICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS, IF ANY, PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTORY PR OVISIONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISION, THE APPELLA TE AUTHORITY IS VESTED WITH ALL THE PLENARY POWERS WHI CH THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY MAY HAVE IN THE MATTER. THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO JUSTIFY CURTAILMENT OF THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN ENTERTAINING AN ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY T HE INCOME-TAX OFFICER. THIS COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THA T THERE ITA NO. 3152/DEL/2018 RBJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 5 MAY BE SEVERAL FACTORS JUSTIFYING THE RAISING OF A NEW PLEA IN AN APPEAL AND EACH CASE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON ITS OWN FACTS. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE GROUND RAISED WAS BONA FIDE AND THAT THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED EARLIER FOR GOOD RE ASONS. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHOULD EXERCIS E HIS DISCRETION IN PERMITTING OR NOT PERMITTING THE ASSE SSEE TO RAISE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW A ND REASON. THE SAME OBSERVATIONS WOULD APPLY TO APPEAL S BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO. 7. THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS CONFINED ONLY TO I SSUES ARISING OUT OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) TAKES TOO NARROW A VIEW OF THE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [VIDE, E.G., C.I.T, V. ANAND PRA SAD (DELHI), C.I.T. V. KARAMCHANDPREMCHAND P. LTD. AND C.I.T. V. CELLULOSE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. . UNDOUBTEDLY, THE TRIBUNAL WILL HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW OR NOT ALLOW A NE W GROUND TO BE RAISED. BUT WHERE THE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY REQUIRED TO CONSIDER A QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM THE FACTS WHICH ARE ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WE FAIL TO SEE WHY SU CH A QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION IN ORDER TO COR RECTLY ASSESS THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE. 8. THE REFRAMED QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, I.E., THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH ARISES FROM THE FACTS AS FOUN D BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVING A BEARING ON THE TAX L IABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. WE REMAND THE PROCEEDINGS TO THE TRIB UNAL FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON THE MERITS. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS TAKEN UP BY THE ASSES SEE ARE HEREBY ADMITTED. 6. THE MAIN ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS CONTRARY TO LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GKN ITA NO. 3152/DEL/2018 RBJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 6 DRIVESHAFTS CASE, WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE L AID DOWN BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. 7. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI LED RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9 20/-. 8. BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGA TION WING VIDE LETTER DATED F.NO. DIT(INV.)-2/U/S 148/20.12-1 3/194 DATED 12.03.2013 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SHARE CAP ITAL FROM THE DUMMY COMPANIES FLOATED BY PERSONS NAMELY, SHRI SURENDER KUMAR JAIN AND SHRI VIRENDER KUMAR JAIN. THE INFORM ATION WAS BASED ON THE DIARIES SEIZED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE 31 & 32. 9. THE NOTICE U/S 147 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29.03.2016 FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE REPLIED ON 28.04. 2016 THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 25.09.20009 MAY BE TR EATED TO HAVE BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED. T HE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON 21.12.2016 MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/- PURPORTEDLY RECEIVED THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY IN THE GUISE OF SHARE CAPITAL. 10. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT IS NULLITY BASED ON THE RATIO OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS PVT. LTD. 259 ITR 18. 11. THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE REASONS HAVE BEEN DU LY SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. THIS BEING A FACTUAL MATTER, WE HAVE OBTAINED T HE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS. ITA NO. 3152/DEL/2018 RBJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 7 13. FIRST, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE REASONS RECORDED HAVE BEEN ISSU ED TO THE ASSESSEE OR NOT, OR WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THI S ISSUE OR NOT. WE DID NOT FIND ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) (PAGE NO. 27) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN TH E ISSUE OF NON-SUPPLY OF REASONS RECORDED BEFORE INITIATING TH E REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE AO FOR A REPORT ON THE CONTENTI ONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE REPORT OF THE AO HAS BEEN SUPPLIE D TO THE ASSESSEE ALSO. FURTHER THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT TH E AO HAS DULY CARRIED OUT HIS FUNCTIONAL AND STATUTORY DUTIES AND HELD THAT THE REASONS WERE SUPPLIED AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW HAS B EEN FOLLOWED. 14. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT DATED 24.01.2018 OF ITO-20(3), NEW DELHI. IT DEALT WITH T HE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148, RECEIPT OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE A SSESSEE, SPEAKING ORDER DISPOSING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION A ND APPROVAL OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THUS, ON GOING THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE REASONS RECORDED HAVE BEEN DULY SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. RATHER THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON SU PPLY OF THE REASONS TO THE ASSESEE. 15. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE AND CLARITY, TH E SCANNED VERSION OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO IS REPRODUCE D HEREUNDER: ITA NO. 3152/DEL/2018 RBJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 8 ITA NO. 3152/DEL/2018 RBJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 9 16. THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR PROVIDING THE RE ASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, ITA NO. 3152/DEL/2018 RBJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 10 1961 FOR REASSESSMENT VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 26.04 .2016 FILED BEFORE THE AO ON 28.04.2016. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SOUGHT THE REASONS RECORDED VIDE LETTER DATED 23.11 .2016. WE ALSO FIND THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 04.11.2016, THE AO HAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE EXPLANATION REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF SH ARE PREMIUM BUT HAS NOT SUPPLIED THE REASONS ASKED HITHERTO. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE LETTER DATED 29.11.2016 WHEREIN TH E OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY THE AO BUT THE SUPPLY OF REASONS HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED THERE TO. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER SHEETS IN ASSESSMENT FO LDER AND COULD NOT FIND ANY NOTING PERTAINING TO FURNISHING OF REASONS RECORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO VERIFIED THE RECORDS OF THE REVENUE AND FIND THAT THE LETTERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUESTING FOR SUPPLY OF REASONS HAVE BEEN A PART O F THE RECORD. THE REVENUE TILL THE DATE OF HEARING COULD NOT FURN ISH THE EVIDENCE OF SUPPLYING THE REASONS RECORDED TO THE A SSESSEE. 17. THE ISSUE OF VITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FAILURE OF THE AO TO FURNISH REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN DEALT BY VARIOUS ORDERS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL NAMELY, SH. M.R. SEETHARAMA (IND.) VS ACIT IN ITA N OS. 926 & 927/BANG/2014 ORDER DATED 09.10.2015 AND ITO VS RIS HI GODANI IN ITA NO. 493/AGRA/2015 ORDER DATED 16.04.2018. 18. FURTHER, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS JAGAT TALKIES DISRIBUTORS 398 ITR 0013 H ELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE VALID I N THE ABSENCE OF FURNISHING OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 3152/DEL/2018 RBJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 11 19. FINALLY, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S GKN DRIVESHAFTS PVT. LTD. 259 ITR 18 HELD THAT AFTER FI LING OF THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148, TH E ASSESSEE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO SEEK THE REASONS RECORDED FOR TH E ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO FURNISH THE REASO NS WITHIN THE REASONABLE TIME. 20. ERGO, IN THE INSTANT CASE, SINCE THE FACT OF FU RNISHING OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED AND KEEPING IN VIEW, THE FACT THAT THE REVENUE COULD NO T PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE REASONS RECORDED INDEED HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE VITIATED. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/12/2020. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (DR. B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: 22/12/2020 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR