Om Praaksh Singh, Ranchi V. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

ITA 361/RAN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6360 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MOHANTI
• Assessee Lawyers: MANJIT VERMA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Capital asset; Depreciation; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Scheme of amalgamation; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Revenue expenditure; Reassessment proceedings; Capital expenditure; TDS
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 142(1); 40(a)(ia); 37(1); 143(1); 250; 274; 143(2); 119; 22; 147; 27; 148; 263; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI E-COURTAT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S, GODARA, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM ITA NO.361/RAN/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) OM PRAKASH SINGH SANKALP, EAST JAIL ROAD, RANCHI- 834001. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AGKPS0300D ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANJIT VERMA, A/R RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A. K. MOHANTI, JCIT, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 22/07/2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/09/2020 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), RANCHI DATED 31.08.2018 WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT VALID ( DETAIL POINT NO 1 TO 7 OF GROUND OF APPEAL AND STATEMENT OF FACT) RS.8,34,825/-. 2. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED RETENTION MONEY/SECURITY DEPOSIT, KID ETC., DEDUCTED FROM BILL ON THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE FOLLOWED WRONG ACCOUNTING POLICY, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REASON BEHIND ADOPTION OF ACCOUNTING POLICY AND RIGHT TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS OF THE RETENTION MONEY/SECURITY DEPOSIT ETC. DEPEND ON SATISFACTION OF THE CONTRACTEE AS PER TERMS OF CONTRACT AND COMPLETION OF CONTRACT. RS.8,43,825/-, SO, WITHOUT RIGHT TO RECEIVE INCOME CANNOT ARISE OR ACCRUE, THEREFORE ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAID AMOUNT AS A CONTINGENT AMOUNT AND WOULD OFFER THE SAME FOR TAX ON ACTUAL RECEIPT BASIS OR AFTER OBTAIN RIGHT TO RECEIVE.(DETAIL POINT NO 8) ITA NO.361/RAN/2018 OM PRAKASH SINGH ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 2 3.THE CIT (A) HAS REJECTED THE APPEAL TREATING AS DEFECTIVE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT ATTACHMENT CONTAINING STATEMENT OF FACT AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS NOT DIGITALLY SIGNED. (DETAIL POINT NO.10 TO 15.) RS.8,43,825/- 4. INTEREST U/S 234C WRONGLY IMPOSED (DETAIL POINT NO.9) RS.8,13,036/- 3. BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A CONTRACTOR AND OWNS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN IN THE NAME OF M/S PRAKASH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.IN THIS CASE, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 19.12.2011..THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER MEANWHILE THE LD. PCIT EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CASH PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.26,25,455/-. THEREAFTER ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT READS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR OWNS M/S PRAKASH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2009-10 WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 64,39,650/-. SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS. 26,25,455/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF BITUMEN FROM M/S 1OCL AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE ON CASH BASIS EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/- WHICH IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DEBITED SECURITY DEPOSIT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 26,57,044/- WHICH IS ALSO NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE, BEING CAPITAL IN NATURE. HENCE THERE WAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ACCORDINGLY, THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 24.12.2014. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE VIDE NOTICE U/S 142(1) ALONG WITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 27.01.2016 WAS ASKED TO FURNISH/GIVE DETAILS OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR; DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS; ALLOWABILITY SECURITY DEPOSIT DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT; DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO IOCL DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, ALONG WITH RELEVANT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. 5. THE ASSESSEE VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 08.02.2016 SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER: ITA NO.361/RAN/2018 OM PRAKASH SINGH ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 3 'IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASE OF BITUMEN AND PAYMENTS MADE AGAINST THEM, WE ARE PRODUCING BILLS OF BITUMEN, BANK BOOK, PROOF OF PURCHASE- DRAFT IN FAVOUR OF IOCL AND OTHER BOOKS OF A/C. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 26,57,044/- IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON TECHNICAL GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED FORM NO.35 (APPEAL FORM) CORRECTLY. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON, AND PERUSED THE FACT OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND OTHER MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREAS LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER. WE NOTE THAT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND FOUR YEARS ELAPSED ON 31.03.2014. AS PER ORDER SHEET OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 WAS CLAIMED TO BE STARTED ON 31.03.2015 WHICH IS BEYOND FOUR YEARS. THE COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TO THE EXTENT APPLICABLE FOR OUR DISCUSSION IS REPRODUCED BELOW: TO SHRI OM PRAKASH SINGH SUKHDEO NAGAR, RATU ROAD, RANCHI SIR, ITA NO.361/RAN/2018 OM PRAKASH SINGH ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 4 SUB: FORWARDING OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER SHEET OF YOUR SCRUTINY CASE U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 143 (3) OF THE I. T. ACT FOR AY 2009-10 -REGARDING. REF: YOUR LETTER RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE ON 09TH MAY, 2018. AS REQUIRED BY YOU, KINDLY FIND ENCLOSED HEREWITH A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET, NOTICE AND LETTERS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A. Y 2009-10 AND LETTER AND REPLY FILED BY ASSESSEE FOR THE APPEAL OF YOUR CASE, I.E.. THE CASE OF SRI OM PRAKASH SINGH[PAN: AGKPS0300D] FOR THE AY 2009-10. YOURS FAITHFULLY ENCL.: AS ABOVE. (VIJAY KUMAR) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1, RANCHI NAME & ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE SRI OM PRAKASH SINGH SUKHDEO NAGAR, RATU ROAD, RANCHI PAN AGKPS0300D STATUS INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 SECTION UNDER WHICH INCOME IS ASSESSED SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 31.03.2015 THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2009-10 HAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE 1.T.ACT, 1961. SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED SECURITY DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS.26,57,044/- IN HIS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH WAS ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BEING A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. HENCE I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. NOTICE U/S 148 IS BEING ISSUED. THUS, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) OF THE ACT HAS COMMENCED BY THE AO AFTER FOUR YEARS.WE ALSO NOTE THAT AS PER REASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) OF THE ACT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CLAIMED TO BE STARTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON 24.12.2014 WHICH IS ALSO BEYOND FOUR YEARS. 8. IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION 3 OF SECTION 143 HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEN NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER ITA NO.361/RAN/2018 OM PRAKASH SINGH ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 5 THE SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FOR THAT WE RELY ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S AMRABATHI INVESTA (P) LTD IN ITA NO. 231/KOL/2018, FOR A.Y. 2009-10, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON, AND PERUSED THE FACT OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND OTHER MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, LET US EXAMINE THE REASON RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 147 OF THE ACT WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: ITA NO.361/RAN/2018 OM PRAKASH SINGH ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 6 WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON 25.09.2009. THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED BY THE DEPARTMENT U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 07.10.2010. THEN THE ASSESSEE`S CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT ON 28.12.2011. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE`S CASE WAS RE-OPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF A REPORT/ INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE ON 31.12.2016. IN THE ASSESSEE`S CASE THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2009-10, THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE`S CASE WAS REOPENED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW IS THAT IF AN ASSESSMENT FOR ANY YEAR HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OR U/S 147, THEN NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN U/S 147 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS INCOME CHARGEABLE TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT IS, THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY, ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. AS WE NOTED THAT THE RE-OPENING IS BEYOND A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMIYA SALES AND INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 274 ITR 25 (CAL.), THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. WE NOTE THAT THERE IS CHANGE IN OPINION AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, WHEREIN, BALANCE SHEET ALONG WITH ANNEXURES, BILLS VOUCHERS, INVOICES WERE FILED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONSIDERED THE SAME WHILE COMPLETING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 28.12.2011. 12. WE NOTE THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S BEEKAY STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 105/KOL/2015, FOR A.Y. 2005-06, ORDER DATED 31.05.2017 HAS HELD THAT SINCE THE RE- OPENING WAS BEYOND A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, AND THERE WAS NO ANY FAILURE BY THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENTS HENCE THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. THE FINDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH ARE GIVEN BELOW: 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 4.1. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ARE EXTRACTED HEREINBELOW FOR READY REFERENCE:- REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148:- A. RECORD REVEALS THAT DEPRECIATION ON 'ROLLS' UNDER THE BLOCK 'PLANT AND MACHINERY WAS CLAIMED AND WAS ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 57.99 LAKHS. SCRUTINY OF DETAILS OF ASSETS REVEAL THAT 'ROLLS' OF RS. 54.01 LAKHS WERE USED FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS AND WORTH RS. 34.89 LAKHS WERE PUT TO USE FOR MORE THAN 180 DAYS. ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWABLE DEPRECIATION ON 'ROLLS' WAS RS. 49.52 LAKHS AGAINST RS, 57.99 LAKHS ALLOWED. THIS LED TO EXCESS DEPRECIATION WORTH RS. 10.99 LAKHS. B. DEPRECIATION ON ELECTRICAL FITTINGS WAS ALLOWABLE @ 15% ONLY, WHEREAS THE SAME WAS CLAIMED AND ALLOWED @ 25%. C. AS PER ACCOUNTING POLICY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE, LONG TERM INVESTMENTS WERE STATED TO BE AT COST LESS PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF SUCH INVESTMENT (CLAUSE 9,' SCHEDULE 22 FORMING PARTS OF THE 'ACCOUNTS). ACCORDINGLY, LONG TERM INVESTMENTS IN QUOTED SHARES WERE STATED AT RS.30.42 LAKHS (COST PRICE RS. 213.31 LAKHS) AFTER REDUCING PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF RS, 182.90 LAKHS AND SUCH PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT (RS. 182.90 LAKHS) WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT/LOSS A/C. AS THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND ANY EXPENDITURE/LOSS THEREON WAS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE/LOSS AND WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. ITA NO.361/RAN/2018 OM PRAKASH SINGH ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 7 D. RECORDS REVEAL THAT TURNOVER OF THE CO. WAS RS, 12,26,32,884/- WHICH INCLUDED SALES OF 38,693.832 MT VALUED AT RS. 118,89,78,581/-. END CUTTING/SCRAPS OF 1344.982 MT VALUE RS. 1,98,51,278/- TOTALING 40,038.812 MT VALUED AT RS. 1,20,88,29,859/- APART FROM CONVERSION CHARGES AND OTHER ITEMS OF SALES. SCRUTINY OF T.AR (ANNEXURE IX) AND 13G OF NOTES ON ACCOUNTS REVEALED THAT CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIALS WAS 43,651.894 MT VALUED AT RS. 844053010 WHICH INCLUDED INTER PROCESS TRANSFER (INCOMING) OF 2958.637 MT OF RAW MATERIALS. FURTHER SALE VALUE OF FINISHED GOODS DID NOT' INCLUDE VALUE OF INTER PROCESS TRANSFER (OUTGOING) OF 2958.637 MT OF RAW MATERIALS. FURTHER SALE VALUE OF FINISHED GOODS DID NOT INCLUDE VALUE OF INTER PROCESS TRANSFER (OUTGOING) OF 2958.637 MT OF FINISHED GOODS. AS THE CONSUMPTION TO RAW MATERIALS WAS DEBITED TO P&L A/C, AT LEAST, COST VALUE OF INTER-PROCESS TRANSFER (OUTGOING) OF FINISHED GOODS WAS REQUIRED TO BE CREDITED TO BE CREDITED TO P& L A/C, WHICH WAS NOT DONE. E. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PAID A SUM OF RS. 19,17,876/- TOWARDS 'RENT AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES' IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR TO M/S MANVIK ESTATES; ANNEXURE VIII OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT SHOWS DETAILS OF TDS ON VARIOUS ITEMS. IT APPEARS THAT NO TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYOUT. AS SUCHIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT 1961, WHICH WAS NOT DONE. F. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID SUM OF RS. 24,52,623/- ON A/C OF CENTRAL EXCISE (1994-96) AND RS. 2,54,96,800/- ON ALC OF ENTRY TAX (AY 2002-03 TO 2004-05). IT HAS NOT BEEN DISALLOWED U/S 43B IN THE ASSESSMENT. G. PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS. 94,683/-, DEBITED TO THE PROFIT/LOSS A/C HAS NOT BEEN DISALLOWED. H. HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE EASE OF M/S SARSWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD.186 ITR 278 HAS HELD THAT 'THE HIGH COURT WAS IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT EVEN AFTER AMALGAMATION OF THE TWO COMPANIES; THE TRANSFEROR COMPANY DID NOT BECOME NON -EXISTENT. INSTEAD IT CONTINUED ITS ENTITY IN BLENDED FORM WITH THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE HIGH COURT'S' VIEW THAT ON AMALGAMATION THERE IS NO COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF CORPORATE PERSONALITY OF ONE WITH ANOTHER CORPORATE BODY AND IT CONTINUES AS SUCH WITH THE OTHER IS NOT SUITABLE IN LAW. THE TRUE EFFECT AND CHARACTER OF THE AMALGAMATION LARGELY DEPENDS UPON THE TERMS OF THE SCHEME OF THE MERGER. BUT THERE CAN BE ANY DOUBT THAT WHEN TWO COMPANIES AMALGAMATE AND MERGE INTO ONE, THE TRANSFEROR COMPANY LOSES ITS IDENTITY AS IT CEASES TO HAVE ITS BUSINESS. HOWEVER, THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ARE DETERMINED UNDER THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION BUT THE CORPORATE ENTITY OF TRANSFEROR COMPANY CEASES TO EXIST WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE THE AMALGAMATION IS MADE EFFECTIVE'. I. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF M/S IK AGENCIES PRIVATE LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-KOLKATA-III, AWT NO 1,2 &3 OF 2003, HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGHCOURT IN ITS ORDER DATED 11/3/2011 HAS OBSERVED THAT-' WE THEREFORE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE BEFORE US, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TOTALLY OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSESSMENT WAS VITIATED FOR NOT GIVING NOTICE U/S 17 TO THE APPELLANT AND THE NOTICE ISSUED TO M/S ABHUDEY PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. WHICH WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE AT THAT TIME WAS INSUFFICIENT TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPELLANT WHO HAD TAKEN OVER THE LIABILITY OF M/S ABHUDEY PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. PRIOR TO ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE AND SUCH FACT WAS ALSO MADE KNOWN TO THE REVENUE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE, IT IS REQUIRED TO RE-ISSUE A NOTICE U/S 148 TO M/S BEEKAY STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.(AABCB3205A), WHO HAVE TAKEN OVER M/S RADICE ISPAT LTD, W.E.F. 114/2005. THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST M/S RADICE ISPAT LTD, SHALL BE DROPPED AS IT HAS MERGED WITH MLS BEEKAY STEELINDUSTRIES LTD. (AABCB3205A) W.E.F. 1/4/2005. 4.1.1 A PERUSAL OF THESE REASONS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ALLEGATION THAT THERE IS FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.361/RAN/2018 OM PRAKASH SINGH ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 8 THE REOPENING IS DONE AFTER THE LAPSE OF FOUR YEARS AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 4.2. THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMIYA SALES AND INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 8. IN THE CASE IN HAND, IT HAS NOWHERE BEEN RECORDED THAT THERE WAS FAILURE OR IMPROPER DISCLOSURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS ALREADY NOTED, SOUGHT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENTS AS THERE WAS 'INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER.' THE RECORDED REASONS DO NOT SPEAK OF ANY OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ADMITTEDLY THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENTS . IN MY VIEW, INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENTS AS SOUGHT TO BE MADE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 9. MOREOVER, I ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF MR. DATTA THAT INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 SINCE THE SUPREME COURT IN PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD. V. ITO [1977] 106 ITR. 1, WHILE DEALING WITH THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE AND SEEKING TO RECOMPUTE AND REASSESS THE DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS ALLOWED IN EXCESS OF THE PERMISSIBLE LIMIT, HELD AS FOLLOWS (PAGE 9) : 'WHEN AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER RELIES UPON HIS OWN RECORDS FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AND MAKES A MISTAKE IN DOING SO, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO HOW RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT MISTAKE CAN BE ASCRIBED TO AN OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE .... IT SEEMS THAT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IN WORKING THE FIGURES OF DEPRECIATION FOR CERTAIN ITEMS OF CAPITAL ASSETS LOST SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE AGGREGATE OF THE DEPRECIATION, INCLUDING THE INITIAL DEPRECIATION, ALLOWED UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS COULD NOT EXCEED THE ORIGINAL COST TO THE ASSESSEE OF THOSE ITEMS OF CAPITAL ASSETS. THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE BECAUSE OF THIS REMISSNESS ON THE PART OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IN NOT APPLYING THE LAW CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (C) OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 10(2)(VI) OF THE ACT OF 1922. AS OBSERVED BY SHAH J. IN CIT V. BHANJI LAVJI , SECTION 34(1)(A) OF THE ACT OF 1922 (CORRESPONDING TO SECTION 147(A) OF THE ACT OF 1961) DOES NOT CAST A DUTY UPON THE ASSESSEE TO INSTRUCT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER ON QUESTIONS OF LAW.' 10. THEREFORE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIES ON HIS OWN RECORDS AND COMMITS MISTAKES, THE SAME CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO BE THE OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PARASHURAM POTTERY ALSO CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF THE FIVE- JUDGE BENCH OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO. LTD. [1961] 41 ITR 191. THUS, WRONG INTERPRETATION OF ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND GRANT OF EXCESS BENEFIT CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR REOPENING. THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT IN PARASHURAM POTTERY EQUALLY APPLIES IN THE CASE IN HAND. THE REASONS RECORDED, AS NOTED, DO NOT WARRANT ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148. 4.3. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VOLTAS LTD. V. ACIT (2012) 349 ITR 656 / 70 DTR 433 (BOM.)(HC)HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: EVEN OTHERWISE EVEN THE ABOVE REASONS GIVEN SUBSEQUENTLY DO NOT SATISFY THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 147(1) OF THE ACT INASMUCH AS THEY DO NOT UNDERTAKE THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE BY THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENTS. 4.4. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TAO PUBLISHING (P) LTD. V. DY. CIT REPORTED IN (2015) 370 ITR 135 (BOM.), HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 10. AS STATED ABOVE, THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER DO NOT DISCLOSE THAT THERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER TO PROVIDE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS. THAT BEING THE POSITION, THIS GROUND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN UP AGAINST THE PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF ITA NO.361/RAN/2018 OM PRAKASH SINGH ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 9 DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTIONS. ONCE THIS WAS NOT THE BASIS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE FOR REASSESSMENT, IT CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST THE PETITIONER THAT THE PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO MAKE A TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE. IT WILL HAVE TO BE HELD THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT FAIL TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS. THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR CARRYING OUT THE REASSESSMENT, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS, IS NOT FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 4.5. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUND CASTING (P) LTD. V. DY. CIT REPORTED IN 250 CTR 119 (BOM.) (HC), HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION IN THE REASONS WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON HIS PART TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE REOPENING BEYOND FOUR YEARS WAS NOT VAILD. (A.Y. 2005-06). 4.6. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORIENT CRAFT LTD. REPORTED IN [2013] 354 ITR 356 (DEL.)(HC) HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE DO CONFIRM OUR APPREHENSION ABOUT THE HARM THAT A LESS STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE VIS--VIS AN INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(1) CAN CAUSE TO THE TAX REGIME. THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE REASONS RECORDED, OF ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH CAME TO THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF THE INTIMATION. IT REFLECTS AN ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 147. 4.7. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOR. REPORTED IN [2009] 308 ITR 38 (DELHI) HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 26 VIEWED IN THIS LIGHT, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE SAID ACT, CARVES OUT AN EXCEPTION FROM THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147. IF A CASE WERE TO FALL WITHIN THE PROVISO, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS COVERED UNDER THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE SAID ACT WOULD NOT BE MATERIAL. ONCE THE EXCEPTION CARVED OUT BY THE PROVISO CAME INTO PLAY, THE CASE WOULD FALL OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF SECTION 147. 27 EXAMINING THE PROVISO [SET OUT ABOVE], WE FIND THAT NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN UNDER SECTION 147 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED: (A) AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR; AND (B) UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE: (I) TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148; OR (II) TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. CONDITION (A) IS ADMITTEDLY SATISFIED IN AS MUCH AS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE SAID ACT. CONDITION (B) DEALS WITH A SPECIAL KIND OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE ESCAPEMENT MUST ARISE OUT OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148. THIS IS CLEARLY NOT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE THE PETITIONER DID FILE THE RETURN. SINCE THERE WAS NO FAILURE TO MAKE THE RETURN, THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO SUCH FAILURE. THIS LEAVES US WITH THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH ARISES OUT OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IF IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT THE PETITIONER HAD DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT, THEN NO ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AFTER THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD INDICATED ABOVE. SO, THE KEY QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER HAD MADE A FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS ? ITA NO.361/RAN/2018 OM PRAKASH SINGH ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 10 29 IN THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER, THERE IS NO WHISPER, WHAT TO SPEAK OF ANY ALLEGATION, THAT THE PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT AND THAT BECAUSE OF THIS FAILURE THERE HAS BEEN AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. MERELY HAVING A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REOPEN ASSESSMENTS BEYOND THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD INDICATED ABOVE. THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT MUST ALSO BE OCCASIONED BY THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS, FULLY AND TRULY. THIS IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR OVERCOMING THE BAR SET UP BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147. IF THIS CONDITION IS NOT SATISFIED, THE BAR WOULD OPERATE AND NO ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 COULD BE TAKEN. WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED ABOVE THAT THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY SUCH ALLEGATION. CONSEQUENTLY, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR REMOVING THE BAR AGAINST TAKING ACTION AFTER THE SAID FOUR YEAR PERIOD REMAINS UNFULFILLED. IN OUR RECENT DECISION IN WEL INTERTRADE PRIVATE LTD (SUPRA) WE HAD AGREED WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DULI CHAND SINGHANIA (SUPRA) THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ALLEGATION IN THE REASONS RECORDED THAT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME HAD OCCURRED BY REASON OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 147 BEYOND THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD WOULD BE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION. REITERATING OUR VIEW-POINT, WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE DATED 29.03.2004 UNDER SECTION 148 BASED ON THE RECORDED REASONS AS SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS THE CONSEQUENT ORDER DATED 02.03.2005 ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS NO ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 COULD BE TAKEN BEYOND THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED ABOVE. 4.8. APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASE LAW TO THE FACTS TO THIS CASE, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT VALID THAT THERE IS NOT EVEN A WHISPER IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT THAT THERE IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE NECESSARY MATERIAL FACTS REQUIRED FOR ASSESSMENT IN VIEW OF THE 1 ST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE NO TANGIBLE MATERIALS HAVE COME TO THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENT TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3). RE-OPENING IS DONE BASED ON THE SAME MATERIAL AND RECORD AND HENCE IT IS BAD IN LAW. AS FAR AS THE CONTENTION, THAT THERE IS A CHANGE IN OPINION IS CONCERNED, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS THERE WAS NEITHER A QUERY ON THIS ISSUE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOR THERE WAS A REPLY BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THERE WAS NO OPINION FORMED. THUS, THE QUESTION OF CHANGE OF OPINION DOES NOT ARISE. 4.9. IN ANY EVENT, AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE RE-OPENING IS BAD IN LAW AS IT DOES NOT FULFILL THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, AND AS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAS COME TO THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE QUASH THE ASSESSMENT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. AFTER PERUSING THE ABOVE REFERRED ORDER OF COORDINATE BENCH, WE NOTE THAT IN THE ASSESSEE`S CASE IN THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEEE, AS NOTED IN ABOVE PARA, THERE IS NO WHISPER, WHAT TO SPEAK OF ANY ALLEGATION, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT AND THAT BECAUSE OF THIS FAILURE THERE HAS BEEN AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. MERELY HAVING A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REOPEN ASSESSMENTS BEYOND THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT MUST ALSO BE OCCASIONED BY THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS, FULLY AND TRULY. THIS IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR OVERCOMING THE BAR SET UP BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IF THIS CONDITION IS NOT SATISFIED, THE BAR WOULD OPERATE AND NO ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 COULD BE TAKEN. WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED ABOVE THAT THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ITA NO.361/RAN/2018 OM PRAKASH SINGH ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 11 CONTAIN ANY SUCH ALLEGATION. CONSEQUENTLY, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR REMOVING THE BAR AGAINST TAKING ACTION AFTER THE SAID FOUR YEAR PERIOD REMAINS UNFULFILLED, THEREFORE, WE QUASH THE REOPENING ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED.: 9. SINCE THE RE-OPENING WAS BEYOND A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, AND THERE WAS NO ANY FAILURE BY THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENTS HENCE THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW, THEREFORE, RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S AMRABATHI INVESTA (P) LTD (SUPRA), WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/09/2020. SD/- (S. S. GODARA) SD/- (A. L. SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA; DATED: /09/2020 RS / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-OM PRAKASH SINGH 2. /RESPONDENT- DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , / DR, ITAT, 6. [ / GUARD FILE. ITA NO.361/RAN/2018 OM PRAKASH SINGH ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 12 // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER/ , SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY