M/s. Tahera International, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

ITA 3214/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1986 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 271(1)(c); 144; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT , , BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO.1621/AHD/2013/SRT & ITA NO.3214/AHD/2016/SRT / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 M/S. TAHERA INTERNATIONAL, 301, ISHWERKRUPA BUILIDING, KHARWAR MOHALLA, NANPURA, SURAT 395 001. [PAN: AACFT 3368A] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4) / WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT. ( ' / APPELLANT) ( #$' /RESPONDENT) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAURABH SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH SHRI NISHIT SHAH, C.A /REVENUE BY : SHRI VINOD KUMAR, SR. D.R /DATE OF HEARING : 26-10-2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-10-2018 / ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, SU RAT (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 26.04.2013 & 30.09.2016 RESPECTIVELY F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y) 2003-04. 2 ITA NOS.1621/AHD/2013/SRT & 3214/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2003-04) M/S.TAHERA INTERNATIONAL 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.162 1/AHD/2013/SRT READ AS FOLLOWS: 1. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. IN ABSENCE OF VALI D 'REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT' THE REASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS ILLEGAL & WITHOUT JURISDICTIO N. THE SAME BE QUASHED NOW. 2. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING REASSESSMENT AS PROPER IN ABSENCE OF ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF VALID NOTICE BY AO. LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF RE ASSESSMENT AS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. IT BE SO HELD NOW AND REASSESSMENT ORDER BE QUASHED. 3. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING PROCEEDINGS TO BE VALID IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS THAT AO MADE ADDITION OF P REMIUM AMOUNT AFTER DEDUCTING DIRECT/INDIRECT EXPENSES WITHOUT AN Y MATERIAL EVIDENCE WHEN APPROVAL TO RE OPEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS OBTAINE D BY AO ON THE BASIS OF UNACCOUNTED DEPOSIT OF CASH IN DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD ON WHICH NO ADDITION IS MADE U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 4. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE LEGAL POSITION THAT REASSESSMENT IN THE STATUS OF AOP IS NOT VALID WHEN THE NOTICE IS NOT ISSUED IN THE STATUS OF AOP. THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S. 144 R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT BEING ILLEGAL, TH E SAME BE QUASHED AND ANNULLED. 5. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING STATUS OF FIRM AS 'AOP' EVEN THOUGH PARTNERSHIP DEED HAS BEEN SUBMITT ED AND CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRAR OF FIRM ALSO MENTIONS STAT US OF ASSESSEE AS 'FIRM'. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE LEARNED CIT ( A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS HOLDING THAT THERE WAS AN AOP BY INCLU DING FOUR PERSONS AS MEMBERS OF AOP IGNORING THE PARTNERSHIP DEED AND CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRAR OF FIRM EVIDENCING THAT THERE ARE ONLY TW O PARTNERS IN THE FIRM.] 7. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN MAKING ARBITRARY ADDITION OF RS. 36 ,65,052/- WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORDS. THE ADDITION OF RS. 36,65,052/ - BEING INCORRECT, WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR COGENT EVIDENCE, THE SAME DESE RVES TO BE DELETED. IT BE DELETED. 8. INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C), 27IB AND 2 7IF OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 9. INITIATION OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B, 2 34C OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.321 4/AHD/2016/SRT READ AS FOLLOWS: 1. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING ACTION OF AO LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 12. 82. 768 - INVOKING PROVI SIONS OF SEC 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE DEL ETED PENALTY 3 ITA NOS.1621/AHD/2013/SRT & 3214/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2003-04) M/S.TAHERA INTERNATIONAL LEVIED BY AO WHEN APPELLANT NEITHER CONCEALED INCOM E NOR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 2. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING PENALTY LEVIED BY AO ON PROFIT ESTIMATED @ RS. 12/- PER KG. EARNED ON SALE OF IMPORTED YARN. LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED PE NALTY LEVIED BY AO ON PRESUMPTION & ESTIMATION OF SUCH HIGH NET PRO FIT. 3. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING PENALTY LEVIED BY AO ON AOP TREATING APPELLANT AS UNREGISTERED FIR M(URF) IGNORING PARTNERSHIP DEED ON RECORD CONFIRMING STAT US OF THE APPELLANT AS A FIRM. LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELE TED PENALTY LEVIED BY AO. 4. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING PENALTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ESTIMATED ADDITION MADE CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO AUTOMATIC LEVY OF PENALTY IN ABSENCE OF COGENT EVID ENCE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE DE LETED PENALTY IN TOTO. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUND, PENALTY L EVIED BY AO IN ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC CHARGE AS TO WHETHER THE APPELL ANT CONCEALED INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOM E IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. ITA NO.1621/AHD/2013/SRT : GROUNDS NO.1 TO 6: 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON THE RECORD OF THE T RIBUNAL. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. IN ABSENCE OF VALID 'REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT' THE REASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT 'THE ACT') IS ILLEGAL & WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING REASSESSMENT AS PROPER IN ABSENCE OF ISS UANCE AND SERVICE OF 4 ITA NOS.1621/AHD/2013/SRT & 3214/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2003-04) M/S.TAHERA INTERNATIONAL VALID NOTICE BY AO. LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF REASSESSMENT AS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND BAD IN LAW AND REASSESSMENT ORDER MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 5. THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY POINTED OUT TH AT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING PROCEEDINGS TO BE VALID IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS THAT AO MADE ADDITION OF PREMIUM AMOUNT AFTER DEDUCTING DIRECT/INDIRECT EXPENSES WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL EVIDE NCE WHEN APPROVAL TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS OBTAINED BY AO ON THE BA SIS OF UNACCOUNTED DEPOSIT OF CASH IN DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD ON W HICH NO ADDITION IS MADE U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND THUS, BOTH THE LOWER AU THORITIES ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE LEGAL POSITION THAT REASSESSMENT IN THE STATUS OF AOP IS NOT VALID WHEN THE NOTICE IS N OT ISSUED IN THE STATUS OF AOP. THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S. 144 R.W S. 147 OF TH E ACT BEING ILLEGAL, THE SAME BE QUASHED AND ANNULLED. THE LD. SR. COUNS EL VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING STATUS OF FIRM AS 'AOP' EVEN THOUGH PARTNERSHIP DEE D HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRAR OF FIRM ALSO MENTIONS STATUS OF ASSESSEE AS 'FIRM'. 6. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION T OWARDS PARA 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PARTNERSHIP FIRM BUT ITS A SSOCIATION OF PERSONS 5 ITA NOS.1621/AHD/2013/SRT & 3214/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2003-04) M/S.TAHERA INTERNATIONAL AND HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED KEEPING THE ASSESSEE AS ASSOCIATION OF PERSON, WHEREAS IN THE REASONS RECOR DED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT AND FOR OBTAINING APPROVAL OF JCIT ON 29.03.201 0 THE AO HIMSELF IN PARA 4 NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AS PER DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBA Y IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASSOCIATED CEMENT & STEEL AGENCIES REPORTED IN 147 ITR 776 (BOM.), WHERE THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN IN THE STATUS OF FI RM AND THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO SUCH R ETURN AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE IN THE STATUS OF AOP IS NOT LEGA L. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF LD. CI T(A) IN PARA 7.4 AT PAGE 28 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ARE NOT CORRECT BEC AUSE IF AT THE STAGE OF INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IF THE AO IS CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE HAS FIRM AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT RETURN U/S. 147 OF THE ACT IN THE SAME STATUS THEN, WITHOUT FOLLOWING LEGAL PROCEDURE PROVIDED IN THE ACT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED A GAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF AOP IS NOT VALID AND THUS, THE SAM E KINDLY BE ANNULLED. 7. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS RATIO OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. ASHOK KUMAR BHARTI AND VIJAY KUMAR GOEL REPORTED IN 198 C TR 260 (ALL.) AND DECISION OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F PN SASIKUMAR VS. CIT REPORTED IN 170 ITR 80 (KER.) AND ORDER OF ITAT , PUNE IN THE CASE OF S.W. CHAUDHRI AND MRS. S.V. WAGH VS. ITO REPORTED I N 82 ITD 725 6 ITA NOS.1621/AHD/2013/SRT & 3214/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2003-04) M/S.TAHERA INTERNATIONAL (PUNE-TRIB.) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE DIFFERENT STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSM ENT IS FRAMED ON DIFFERENT STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE THEN, THE NOTICE A ND CONSEQUENT REASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 147 OF THE ACT IS INVALID. 8. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT AS PER RATIO DECISION OF HON'BLE ALL AHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KANT TRAVELS REPORTED IN 22 TAXMANN.COM 240 (ALL.), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN IF STATUS OF ASSESSEE IS NOT SPECIFIED IN A NOTICE U/S. 148, SAME WOULD NOT BE INVALID WHEN ENT ITY TO WHOM NOTICE IS ADDRESSED AND ENTITY AGAINST WHOM ASSESSMENT IS FRA MED IS ONE, AND SAID ENTITY HAD PARTICIPATED IN PROCEEDINGS IN RESP ONSE TO SAID NOTICE. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION OF S. 292BB OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCE EDINGS AND COOPERATED IN ANY INQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT THEN, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT THE ANY NOTICE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACTG WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON HIM, HAS B EEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF TH IS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE PRECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTI ON IN ANY PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY UNDER THIS ACT. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE HENCE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DISMI SSED. 7 ITA NOS.1621/AHD/2013/SRT & 3214/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2003-04) M/S.TAHERA INTERNATIONAL 9. PLACING REJOINDER TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. SR. COUN SEL SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION OF S. 292BB WAS BROUGHT IN THE PROVIS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE W.E.F 01.04.2008, WHICH IS APPLICABLE FROM AY 2009- 10 ONWARDS THEREFORE, THIS PROVISION HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CA SE PERTAINING TO AY 2003-04. 10. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, FIRST OF ALL, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT FROM THE VIGILANT AND CAREFUL RE ADING OF PROVISION OF S. 292BB OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEARLY DISCERNABLE THAT IT IS PERTAINING TO THE DISPUTE REGARDING SERVICE OF NOTICE AND THIS PROVIS ION IS NOT PROVIDING ANY MANDATE REGARDING INCORRECT OR WRONG CONTENT OF THE NOTICE WHICH MAKES THE NOTICE INVALID OR BAD IN LAW. FURTHER, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF LD. SR. COUNSEL THAT THE PROVISION OF S. 292BB OF THE ACT WAS BROUGHT IN THE STATUE FROM 01.04.2008 AND THE SAME IS APPLICABLE FROM AY 2009-10 ONWARD AND NOT IN PRESENT AY 2003-04. FROM CAREFUL READING OF IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE REPORT OF THE A O DATED 19.06.2017 ALONG WITH COPY OF THE FORM FOR RECORDING THE REASO NS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 AND FOR OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF THE JCIT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TREA TING THE ASSESSEE AS FIRM, WHEREAS THE AO WHILE PASSING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARA 9 CHANGE THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM TO AOP. THIS CHANGE OF STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 7.4 AT PAGE 28 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER DI SMISSING THE OBJECTION 8 ITA NOS.1621/AHD/2013/SRT & 3214/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2003-04) M/S.TAHERA INTERNATIONAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. AS PER VARI OUS DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH C OURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASSOCIATE CEMENT & STEEL AGENCIES ( SUPRA), WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS IN THE STATUS OF FIRM AND TH E AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO SUCH RETURN THEN, THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE STATUS OF AOP IS NOT LEGAL. FURTHERMOR E, THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT ON THE SIMILAR CONTROVERSY IN THE CASE O F P.N. SASIKUMAR V. CIT (SUPRA), WHERE THE ITO ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 148 OF T HE ACT TO S, ONE OF MEMBERS OF ASSESSEE-AOP IT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY S TATED IN NOTICE AS TO WHETHER NOTICES WERE ISSUED AGAINST INDIVIDUAL S OR IN ANY OTHER CAPACITY LIKE PRINCIPAL OFFICER OR MEMBER OF ASSESSEE OR BOI WHETHER ASSESSMENT NOTICES U/S. 148 WERE NOT SERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND, THEREFORE, ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS WERE ILLEGAL AND WITH OUT JURISDICTION AND SUCH DEFECT CANNOT BE CURED BY PROVISION OF S. 292B OF THE ACT AND ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 11. ON RESPECTFUL CONSIDERATION OF RATIO OF DECISIO N OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KANT TRAVELS (SUP RA), AS RELIED BY THE LD. DR, WE NOTE THAT IN THIS CASE A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WHO APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE BEF ORE AO AND PARTICIPATED IN PROCEEDINGS. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED BY MAKING SOME ADDITIONS TO ASSESSEES INCOME. ON APPEAL, THE COM MISSIONER (APPEALS) UPHELD THE SAID ORDER. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE AS SESSEE CHALLENGED THE 9 ITA NOS.1621/AHD/2013/SRT & 3214/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2003-04) M/S.TAHERA INTERNATIONAL NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT IN STATUS OF UNRE GISTERED FIRM AS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT T HE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT INDICATE WHETHER I T WAS ISSUED TO A REGISTERED FIRM OR TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS CARRYIN G ON PROPRIETARY BUSINESS. BUT, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO IN THE R EASONS NOTED THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AS FIRM AND FRAME THE REASSESSMENT ORDER CHANGING THE SAID STATUS FROM FIRM TO AOP. THEREFORE, WE RESPEC TFULLY HOLD THAT BENEFIT OF THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KANT TRAVELS (SUPRA) IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE REVEN UE, IN THE PRESENT CASE HAVING DISTINCT AND DISSIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES. 12. IN VIEW OF RATIO OF ABOVE DECISIONS, WE ARE INC LINED TO HOLD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS FIR M AND AFTER RECORDING REASONS FOR REOPENING U/S. 147 OF THE ACT ISSUED NO TICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME STATUS BUT WHILE FRAMIN G REASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) R/W. S. 147 OF THE ACT, THE AO CHANGE S TATUS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM FIRM TO AOP WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE PROCEDURE PR OVIDED IN THE ACT AND THEREFORE, REASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IS VOID AB INITIO AND BAD IN LAW AND THUS, WE QUASH THE SAME. 13. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS NO.1 TO 6 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALL CONS EQUENT ORDERS INCLUDING IMPUGNED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ARE QUASHE D. SINCE, WE HAVE 10 ITA NOS.1621/AHD/2013/SRT & 3214/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2003-04) M/S.TAHERA INTERNATIONAL ALLOWED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON LEGAL GROUNDS AND IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT AND FIRST APPELLATE ORDER HAVE BEEN QU ASHED BY THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER THEREFORE, GROUNDS OF THE ASSESS EE ON MERITS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND WE ARE NOT ADJUDICATING UPON THEM A S HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS ITA NO.3214/AHD/2016/SRT: 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND C AREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON THE RECORD OF THE T RIBUNAL. SINCE, BY THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, WE HAVE QUASHED REASSES SMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IMPOS ED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) CANNO T BE HELD AS SUSTAINABLE AND THUS, GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN TH IS APPEAL ARE ALLOWED AND AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY. 15. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 2 6 TH OCTOBER, 2018. / SURAT ; DATED : 26 TH OCTOBER, 2018 EDN # & / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT ; 3. $ ( ) / THE CONCERNED CIT(A); 4. THE CONCERNED PRL. CIT; 5. , , / DR, ITAT, SURAT; 6. / GUARD FILE . SD/- SD/- ( ) ( O.P.MEENA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (C.M.GARG) /JUDICIAL MEMBER