M/s. Fashionage Corporation (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3542/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3225 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Tangible material; Wrong claim; Accommodation entries; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 68; 148; 11; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES B : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.3542/DEL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004 M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI 110020 C/O. M/S. PUNEET MOHALAY & CO. C.AS. 3, GAGAN VIHAR, 2 ND FLOOR, DELHI 110 092. PAN AAACF6135G VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR REVENUE : SHRI ARUN KUMAR YADAV , SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 20.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.11.2017 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XIII, NEW DELHI, DATED 04 TH MAY, 2010, FOR THE A.Y. 2003-2004, CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF THE AS SESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND ADDITION OF RS.65 LAKHS. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FILED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 02 ND DECEMBER, 2003 DECLARING INCOME 2 ITA.NO.3542/DEL./2012 M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. AT LOSS OF RS.17,22,956. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U NDER SECTION 143(1) ON 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2003 AT RETURNED LOSS. FURTHER, ORDER UN DER SECTION 147 WAS PASSED ON 26 TH OCTOBER, 2007 AT A LOSS OF RS.13,22,956. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS AGAIN IS SUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30 TH MARCH, 2010. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION, THE A.O. PASSED THE EX-PARTE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER UN DER SECTION 144/147 OF THE I.T. ACT, DATED 16 TH DECEMBER, 2010 AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.65 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED C ASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2.1. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORD ER DATED 16 TH DECEMBER, 2010 BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE CHA LLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS ADDITION OF RS.65 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CO NSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE, NOTED THAT REASONS WERE RE CORDED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ADIT (INV.) AND ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI HARISH PAWAR WHICH IS FRESH INFOR MATION RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING. THE REOPENING OF THE ASS ESSMENT WAS THEREFORE, CONFIRMED AND ADDITION ON MERIT WAS ALSO CONFIRMED. 3 ITA.NO.3542/DEL./2012 M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BO TH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT VALIDITY OF THE REO PENING OF THE ASSESSMENT SHALL HAVE TO BE DETERMINED WITH REFEREN CE TO THE REASONS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE I.T. ACT. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT EARLIER THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COM PLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2007. THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE ARE FILED AT PAGE NO.3 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH THE A.O. RECORDED THAT THE INFORMATION HAVE BEEN RECEIV ED FROM DIT (INV.) NEW DELHI, VIDE LETTER DATED 16 TH JUNE, 2006 THAT ABOVE NAMED COMPANY WAS INVOLVED IN GIVING AND TAKING BOGUS ENT RIES/ TRANSACTIONS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE A .O. ACCORDINGLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SE CTION 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE A.O. PASSED THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER U NDER SECTION 143(3)/147 DATED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2007 AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.4 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRY RECEIV ED FROM SHRI SANJEEV GUPTA. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ADDITIO N BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2009, DELETED THE ADDITION. COPY OF THE ORDERS ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE A.O. 4 ITA.NO.3542/DEL./2012 M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. AGAIN REOPENED THE RE-ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 30 TH MARCH, 2010 BY RECORDING THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF TH E I.T. ACT AND ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION PVT. LTD., A.Y. 03-04 REASONS FOR NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE ADIT (INV. ), UNIT-II(2), JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI AND ON VERIFICAT ION OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT : 1. AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED CHEQUE, WAS MADE BY SH. HAERIS H PAWAR FROM THE ACCOUNT NO. 00262000014524 OF M/S AM RIT IMPEX (INDIA) PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF SH. HARISH PANWAR. HE HAS TRANSFERRED FUND FROM HIS INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT IN THE SAME BRANCH, WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN HUGE CASH DEPOSIT ON THE SAME DATE OF TRANSFER ENTRIES. 2. IN HIS STATEMENT UNDER OATH DATED 12.03.2009 HE HAS STATED THAT HE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BANK ACCOUNT IN HDFC BANK. IN THE STATEMENT HE HAS ACCEPTED THAT BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S AMRIT IMPEX (INDIA) HAS BEEN USED FOR PROVIDING OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. 5 ITA.NO.3542/DEL./2012 M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. 3. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 147/143(3) OF THE I T ACT, 1961, IN THIS CASE DATED 26.10.2007 THE SAME HAS NO T BEEN ADDED BACK. BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTS, THE AMOUNT TAKEN BY THE A SSESSEE OF RS.65 LACS (IN TOTAL) AS MANAGERS CHEQUE/CHEQUES FROM SH. HARISH PAWAR IS IN FACT ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND FOR MED PART OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE F. V. 2002-03 I.E. A.Y. 2003-04. I HAVE REASON TO B ELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ES CAPED ASSESSMENT BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE ON PART OF THE AS SESSEE TO DISCLOSE ITS INCOME FULLY AND TRULY. ISSUE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT. DATED 25.03.2010 SD/-XXX (NEHA CHAUDHARY) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI. 4.1. IN THE ABOVE REASONS, THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED THE SAME FACT/REASONS WHICH WERE RECORDED EARLIER THAT INFOR MATION HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM ADIT (INV,) WING, NEW DELHI AND ON VE RIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FROM SHRI HARISH PAWAR. IT IS A LSO NOTED THAT EARLIER ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) WAS COM PLETED ON 26 TH 6 ITA.NO.3542/DEL./2012 M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. OCTOBER, 2007 AND SAME ADDITION HAS NOT BEEN ADDED BACK. THE A.O. THEREFORE, HAD A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHAR GEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE ON THE PA RT OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ITS INCOME FULLY AND TRULY. THE REASONS AR E RECORDED ON 25 TH MARCH, 2010. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THIS INFORMATION WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ASS ESSEE HAD ALSO DISCLOSED THE RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT IN THE RE GULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ON WHICH, EARLIER RETURN WAS PROCESSED AS WELL AS PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147 WERE ALSO CONDUCTED VIDE ORDER DA TED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2007 AND NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. THEREFORE, PRIMA FACIE NO NEW INFORMATION OR MATERIAL AVAILABLE TO THE A.O. HE HA S ALSO SUBMITTED THAT RE-ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED AGAIN AFTER EX PIRY OF 04 YEARS. THEREFORE, REOPENING OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER : PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR TH E RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THI S SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAP ED 7 ITA.NO.3542/DEL./2012 M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF TH E FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SEC TION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) O F SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL M ATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FOR THAT ASSESSMENT Y EAR. 4.2. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDE R APPEAL IS 2003-2004 AND EARLIER RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147 OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2007. THEREFORE, PROVISO TO SECTION 147 WILL BE APPLICABL E TO THE PRESENT CASE. IT PROVIDES THAT NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UND ER THIS SECTION AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT A SSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON TH E PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RES PONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FUL LY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT FOR THAT AS SESSMENT YEAR. IN THIS CASE, FOUR YEARS HAVE ALREADY COMPLETED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2008 FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THERE IS NO CASE OF NON- FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE A.O. RECORDED R EASONS ON 8 ITA.NO.3542/DEL./2012 M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. VERIFICATION OF RECORD ON WHICH ALL INFORMATION WER E AVAILABLE. THE A.O. IN THE REASONS HAS RECORDED THAT BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ITS INCOME FULLY A ND TRULY . HOWEVER, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 HAS B EEN THAT TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT. THE A.O. IN THE REASONS DID NOT MENTION THAT ASSES SEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACT S FOR ASSESSMENT. THE A.O. HAS USED THE WORD INCOME WHICH IS NOT PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. AS PER THE REASONS ITS ELF, THE REPORT OF ADIT (INV.) WAS ALREADY WITH THE A.O. ABOUT THE RECEIPT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY BY ASSESSEE WHEN ORIGINAL RE-ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS WERE INITIATED. THE A.O. IN PARA-3 OF THE REASONS ALSO N OTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) DATED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2007 THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ADDED BACK WHICH WOULD M EAN THAT THE A.O. DID NOT MAKE ADDITION OF RS.65 LAKHS AS RECEIP T FROM SHRI HARISH PAWAR IN THE ORIGINAL RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2007. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY FAILURE ON T HE PART OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECE SSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT BECAUSE OF SUCH INFORMATION WERE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON 9 ITA.NO.3542/DEL./2012 M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. RECORD OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DISC LOSED THE RECEIPT OF RS.65 LAKHS FROM SHRI HARISH PAWAR IN THE ORIGIN AL RETURN OF INCOME. THE A.O. IN THE ORIGINAL REASONS RECORDED U NDER SECTION 147/148 HAD ALSO SIMILARLY RECORDED THAT ASSESSEE-C OMPANY HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FAC TS AND SOURCE OF THESE FUNDS THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY (PB-3). HOWEVER, SUCH FINDING OF THE A.O. HAVE BEEN NEGATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4 LAKHS VIDE ORDER D ATED 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2009. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS CLEA R THAT THE A.O. HAS AGAIN RECORDED REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSM ENT TO CORRECT AN INCORRECT ASSESSMENT MADE EARLIER. HOWEVER, THERE W AS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRUL Y ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED AL L THE RELEVANT FACTS TO THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FAIRL Y DISCLOSE WHAT IS EXPECTED BY HIM I.E., THE PRIMARY FACTS WHILE FILIN G THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS FOR THE A.O. TO DRAW ANY INFERENCE . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED ALL THE ABOVE FACTS NOT ONLY IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME BUT INFORMATION FROM DDIT WAS ALRE ADY WITH THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF RECORDING ORIGINAL REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE 10 ITA.NO.3542/DEL./2012 M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. ASSESSMENT. THERE WAS NO OTHER TANGIBLE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD FOR RECORDING THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSE SSMENT THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEA RS THAT THE A.O. WANTED TO CORRECT THE ERROR IN HIS ORIGINAL RE-ASSE SSMENT ORDER DATED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2007 AND HENCE, RECORDED THE PRESENT REAS ONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT TO MAKE CORRECTION IN H IS EARLIER RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER TH E LAW. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TITANOR CO MPONENTS LTD., VS. ACIT AND OTHERS (2012) 343 ITR 183 (BOM.) HELD AS UNDER : WHERE A REASSESSMENT IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE AFTER FOUR YEARS THE POWER CONFERRED BY SECTION 147 OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, DOES NOT PROVIDE AFRESH OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CORRECT AN INCORRECT AS SESSMENT MADE EARLIER UNLESS THE MISTAKE IN THE ASSESSMENT S O MADE IS THE RESULT OF A FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE ALL MATERIALS FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSME NT. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WRONG CLAIM MADE BY AN ASSESSEE AFTER DISCLOSING ALL THE TRUE AND MATERIAL FACTS AND A WRONG CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY WITHHOLDING T HE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY. IT IS ONLY IN THE L ATTER CASE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PROCEED UNDER SECTION 147. 11 ITA.NO.3542/DEL./2012 M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. HELD, ALLOWING THE PETITION, THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAD NOT RECORDED THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PET ITIONER TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. WHAT WAS RECORDED WAS THAT THE PETITIONER HAD WRONGLY CLAIMED CERTAIN DEDUCTIO NS WHICH HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN THE YEAR 2004 WERE NOT VAL ID. 4.3. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF T ECHMAN BUILDWELL P. LTD., VS. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 771 (DEL .) HELD AS UNDER : HELD, ALLOWING THE PETITION, THAT THE 'REASONS TO BELIEVE ' NOWHERE HIGHLIGHTED WHAT, IF AT ALL, WAS THE MATERI AL WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME UPON OR BECAME AWARE OF SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. IN OTHER WOR DS, WHAT TRIGGERED THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S CURIOSITY TO IMPEL HIM TO REEXAMINE THE FILES AND DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO A COMPLETED ASSESSMENT WAS UNKNOWN. NOR DID THE MATER IALS PLACED IN THE ASSESSMENT SHOW THAT THE ASSESSES HAD UNJUSTIFIABLY SUPPRESSED VALID OR RELEVANT INFORMAT ION WHICH WAS OTHERWISE AVAILABLE. THE ADVERTENCE TO TH E DISALLOWANCE OF A PROVISION FOR AN UNASCERTAINED LI ABILITY POINTS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER INDULGING IN WHAT A MOUNTED TO NOTHING BUT A MASKED REVIEW. WHAT APPEARED TO HA VE EXCITED THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S MIND WAS THAT THE O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT FRAMED PROPERLY AS IT OVER LOOKED 12 ITA.NO.3542/DEL./2012 M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. CERTAIN MATERIALS WHICH LED TO LOSS OF REVENUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FIRST INSTANCE DID NOT PER FORM HIS JOB PROPERLY FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE FA ULTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S OMISSION WAS THE SOLE BASIS FOR ISSUING THE REASSESSMENT NOTICE AND, CONSEQUENTLY, PROCEEDING TO MAKE THE DEMAND. THEREFORE, THE NOTIC E AND THE DEMANDS ARISING CONSEQUENT TO THE NOTICE WERE QUASHED. 4.4. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF N ESTLE INDIA LTD., VS. DCIT (2016) 384 ITR 334 (DEL.) HELD AS UN DER : (II) THAT AS FAR AS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 W AS CONCERNED THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AFTER FOUR YEARS WH ICH WAS BEYOND THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT. THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL PROVID ING A LIVE LINK TO THE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME ESC APED ASSESSMENT. THERE WAS NO FAILURE BY THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS. THUS, THE ORDER DATED MARCH, 18,2002, RECORDING THE REASONS FOR REASSESSM ENT WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMEN T UNDER SECTION 147 AND WAS THEREFORE UNSUSTAINABLE I N LAW. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIE D UPON THE ORDER OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF JITEN GUR NANI VS. ITO, WARD- 13 ITA.NO.3542/DEL./2012 M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. 19(1), NEW DELHI DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2015 IN ITA.NO.4908/DEL./2012 IN WHICH ON RECEIPT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FROM SHR I HARISH PAWAR THROUGH ACCOUNT OF AMRIT IMPEX (INDIA) THE TRIBUNAL QUASHED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN T HE MATTER. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE DISCLOSED PRIMARY FACTS AND INFORMATION REGARDING ACCOMMODATI ON ENTRY WAS ALREADY WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, NO NEW MATE RIAL WAS WITH THE A.O. TO FORM SECOND TIME THE REASONS THAT INCOM E CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL F ACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THEREF ORE, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE E ND OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CLEARLY BARRED BY TIME IN THIS C ASE. THE A.O. THEREFORE, DID NOT HAVE ANY VALID REASONS FOR REOPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND WOULD NOT GET JURISDICTION TO PROCEE D AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. WE, ACC ORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND QUASH THE R EOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE I.T. ACT. R ESULTANTLY, THE 14 ITA.NO.3542/DEL./2012 M/S. FASHIONAGE CORPORATION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. ENTIRE ADDITION STANDS DELETED. THERE IS NO NEED TO DECIDE THE ADDITION ON MERITS SEPARATELY. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2017 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. //BY ORDER // ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES DELHI.