TV Today Network Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3658/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6569 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R SONBHADRA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 147; 148; 154; 139

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 3658-3659/DEL/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO S. 3658 & 3659 /DEL/201 3 A.Y RS . : 2004 - 05 & 2007 - 08 M/S TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED, F-26, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI 110 001 (PAN: AABCT0424B) VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SALIL AGARWAL, ADV. & SH. SHAILESH GUPTA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. V.R. SONBHADRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : 01 0101 01- -- -0 00 02 22 2- -- -201 201 201 2016 66 6 DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : 01 0101 01- -- -03 0303 03- -- -201 201 201 2016 66 6 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM H.S. SIDHU, JM H.S. SIDHU, JM H.S. SIDHU, JM ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS AGAINST THE SEPAR ATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NEW D ELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 & 2007-08. SINCE THE ISSU ES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL, WE ARE THEREFORE, PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS BY PASSING THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER, B Y DEALING WITH THE ITA NO. 3658/DEL/2013 (A.Y. 2004-05) FOR THE SAKE OF CONVEN IENCE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ORIGINA L ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED ON 03.12.2006 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 51,38,5 1,000/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS REOPENED U/S. 147 AFTER RECORD ING THE REASONS, GIST OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 3658-3659/DEL/2013 2 IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04-05 WAS COMPLETED AFTER SCRUTINY IN DECEMBER, 2006 DETERMIN ING AN INCOME OF RS. 5138.51 LACS. FURTHER REASSESSMENT WAS DON E U/S. 154 IN DECEMBER, 2007. IT HAS COME TO THE NOTICE THAT EXP ENDITURE A/C OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF RS. 72.30 LACS SHOWN ON 3 1 ST JANUARY, 2004, RS. 12.30 LACS PERTAINS TO PROVISIONS, AS THE PROVISION MADE WAS NOT AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES AS SUCH AMOUNT S HOWN IN P&L A/C WORTH RS. 12.30 LACS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED A ND ADDED BACK TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS HAS RESULTED IN UN DER ASSESSMENT OF RS. 12,30,127/-. 2.1 AFTER RECORDING REASONS TO BELIEVE, THE AO ISSU ED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 25.3.2011 AND SERVED UP ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING WERE INTIMATED TO THE ASS ESSEE ON 24.8.2011 AND CASE WAS FIXED ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS FOR 5.9.2011, 20.9.2011 & 4.11.2011 AND ON 4.11.2011 ASSESSEES AR ATTENDED THE HEARING. THER EAFTER, THE AO DISALLOWED THE PROVISION MADE UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR AND MAINTE NANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 12,30,127/- AND ADDED BACK TO THE RETURN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TREATING THE SAME AS ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND THE REAFTER COMPLETED THE RE- ASSESSMENT AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 51,50,81,127/- U/S. 143(3)/154/148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 12.12.2011. ITA NOS. 3658-3659/DEL/2013 3 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO, ASSESSEE APPEA LED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.3.2013 HA S PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE STATED THAT AO ISSUED NOTICE DATED 25.3.2011 U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1 961 TO THE ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. HE DIRECTED THE AS SESSEE TO FILE ITS RETURN WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE. HE ALSO DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO. 1 OF THE SMALL PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 28 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THIS NOTICE FOR OUR PERUSAL. HE FURTHER STATED THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE DATED 25.3.2011 ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DAT ED 1.4.2011 REQUESTED THE AO TO PROVIDE THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REO PENING OF THE CASE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME AO HAS PROVIDED THE REASONS R ECORDED U/S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 VIDE LETTER DATED 24.8.2011. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO. 24 OF THE PAPER BOO K AND STATED THAT THE AO HAS ALSO ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S. 154/155 OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 DATED 25.5.2010 AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS REPLY DATED 29.6.2010 WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED AT PAGE NO. 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE STATED THAT AFTER RECEIVING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO DROPPED THE NOTICE U/S. 154/155 OF THE I.T. ACT MEANING TH EREBY THAT AO HAS ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND NO MISTAKE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE COPY O F THE ORDER DROPPING THE NOTICE DATED 25.5.2010 FOR OUR PERUSAL. LD. COUNS EL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ITA NOS. 3658-3659/DEL/2013 4 STATED THAT THIS IS A CHANGE OF OPINION BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 143(3) OF T HE I.T. ACT ON 3.12.2006, AFTER MAKING DETAILED ENQUIRY AND THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 HAS BEE N ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS U/S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT WIT HOUT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL. HE ALSO DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE REASONS RECORDE D WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE REQUESTED THAT REASSESSMENT FR AMED MAY BE QUASHED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLO WING CASE LAWS:- A) CIT VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. [348 ITR 485] (F ULL BENCH) DELHI HIGH COURT. B) ACIT & ORS. VS. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DE ALERSHIP LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) C) TECHMAN BUILDWELL P. LTD. VS. ACIT [317 ITR 771 ] DELHI HIGH COURT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASON ED ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS PREVAILING LAW. HE FURTHER STATED THAT NOTICE U/S. 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED AFTER ADOPTING THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE UNDER THE LAW AND WITH TANGIBL E MATERIAL. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT DOES NOT ARI SE. ACCORDINGLY, HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH THE S MALL PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 28 IN WHICH HE HAS A TTACHED THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 18.10.2004; COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 148 DATED 25.3.2011; ITA NOS. 3658-3659/DEL/2013 5 COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE AO DATED 1.4.2011; COPY O F REASONS RECORDED SUPPLIED BY AO; COPY OF REPLY TO AO DATED 5.9.2011; COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION FI LED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. CO UNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 BY THE AO AS WELL AS TH E REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT PAGES 1 & 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE HAVE ALSO PERU SED THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTICE DATED 25 .3.2011 ISSUED U/S. 148; REPLY DATED 1.4.2011 OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICE DATED 25.3.2011 U/S. 148 AND THE REASONS RECORDED SUPPLIED BY THE AO AS UND ER:- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 PAN I GIR NO.AABCT0424B OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROOM NO.221, C.R. BUILDING, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI. DATED: 25.03.2011 TO THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, MIS T V TODAY NETWORK LTD. E-1, VIDEOCON TOWER, 8TH FLOOR, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI. WHEREAS I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT YOUR INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN IN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NOS. 3658-3659/DEL/2013 6 I, THEREFORE, PROPOSE TO ASSESS /RE-ASSESS THE INCOME FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR AND I HEREBY REQUIRE YOU TO DELIVE R TO ME WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE, A RETURN IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM OF YOUR INCOME FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS NOTICE IS BEING ISSUED AFTER OBTAINING THE NEC ESSARY SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VI, NEW DELHI. SD/- (JEETENDERA KUMAR) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI. REPLY TO NOTICE DATED 1.4.2011 REPLY TO NOTICE DATED 1.4.2011 REPLY TO NOTICE DATED 1.4.2011 REPLY TO NOTICE DATED 1.4.2011 01.4.2011 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1), CR BUILDING NEW DELHI SUB:- NOTICE U/S. 148 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 -05 IN RESPONSE TO YOUR NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAD ALREADY FILED OUR RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON 1.11.2004 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. 01111042347. WE HEREBY REQUEST TO PLEASE TREAT THIS RETURN OF INCO ME AS RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. FURTHER WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST YOUR HONOR TO PLEA SE PROVIDE US THE REASONS, SO RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE CASE, WHICH YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT OUR INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 H AS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, FOR TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED ITA NOS. 3658-3659/DEL/2013 7 SD/- AROON PURI MANAGING DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 6(1), NEW DELHI. ROOM NO.221, 2ND FLOOR, CENTRAL REVERIUE BUILDING', I.P.-ESTATE, NEW DELHI.11~002. F.NO . ACIT/CIRCLE 16(1)/2011-2012 DATE 24TH AUGUST, 2011 NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION(1) OF SECTION 142 OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FILE NO,225 PAN! GIR NO,AABCT04248 TO THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, M/S TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED E-1, VIDEOCON TOWER, 8TH FLOOR, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI-110 055 SIR/I MADAM, SUB: RE-OPENING U/S 147/148 OF THE LT. ACT, 1961, I N THE CASE OF MIS TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED, FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05-REGARDING- PLEASE REFER TO TILE ABOVE MENTIONED SUBJECT. ITA NOS. 3658-3659/DEL/2013 8 IN THE CONNECTION, THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT OF M/S T V TODAY NETWORK LIMITED FOR THE AY, 2004-05 WAS COMPLETED AFTER SCRUTINY IN DEC EMBER, 2006 DETERMINING AN INCOME OF RS.5138.51 LAKHS. FURTHER REASSESSMENT WAS DONE U/S 154 IN DECEMBER, 2007. THE REASONS RECORDED U/S'147 OF TH E I.T, ACT, 1961 IS AS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-'A'. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED FOR FURNISH YOUR REPLY TO THE SAME WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR REPLY U/S. 142(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ROOM NO. 221, 2 ND FLOOR, CR BUILDING, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI 110002 ON OR BEFORE 5.9.2011 AT 12.30 PM. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, ENCL: ANNEXURE A SD/- (MONIKA SINGH) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI ANNEXURE 'A' NAME & ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE M/S T,V. TODAY NET WORK LTD. E-1, VIDEOCON TOWER, 8TH FLOOR. JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI- 110055 PAN: AABCT04248 STATUS COMPANY ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 REASONS RECORDED U/S 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PROVIDES THAT A PROVISION MADE IN THE ACCOUNTS FOR AN ACCRUED OR KNOW LIABILITY IS AN ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTIO N, WHILE OTHER PROVISIONS MADE DO NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION. IT HAS BEEN JUDI CIALLY HELD THAT FOR A LOSS TO BE ITA NOS. 3658-3659/DEL/2013 9 DEDUCTIBLE, IT MUST HAVE ACTUALLY ARISEN AND INCURR ED AND NOT MERELY ANTICIPATED AS CERTAIN TO OCCUR IN FUTURE. IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4-05 WAS COMPLETED AFTER SCRUTINY IN DECEMBER, 2006 DETERMINING AN INCOME O F RS.5138.51 LAC. FURTHER REASSESSMENT WAS DONE U/S 154 IN DEC, 2007. IT HAS COME TO THE NOTICE THAT EXPENDITURE A/C OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF RS. 72 .30 LACS SHOWN ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2004, RS. 12.30 LACS PERTAINS TO PROVISION S, AS THE PROVISION MADE WAS NOT AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES AS SUCH AMOUNT SHOW N IN P&L ACCOUNT WORTH RS. 12.30 LACS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED AND ADDED BA CK TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS HAS RESULTED IN UNDER ASSESSMENT OF RS. 12,30,127/-. THEREFORE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOM E OF RS. 12,30,127/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE NOT D ISCLOSING FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3). HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS NEED TO BE REOPENED U/S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. APPROVAL OF CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI IS SOLICITED HEREBY U/S. 151(2) OF THE I .T. ACT. SD/- (JEETENDRA KUMAR) DATED: 21/03/2011 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X CIRCLE-16(1) NEW DELHI 8. AS REGARDS ISSUE OF REOPENING IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT ALL THE QUESTIONS / REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT REOPENING HAD BEEN DONE MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION IN AS MUC H AS THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, THE A O HAD APPARENTLY APPLIED HIS MIND AND HAD RAISED QUERIES WITH REGARD TO THE ITEM S WHICH HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE AO IN THIS NOTICE U/S. 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. WE ALSO FIND THAT AO HAS NO FRESH MATERIAL TO FORM HIS OPINION REGA RDING ESCAPEMENT OF ASSESSMENT AND HE HAS ALSO NOT FOUND ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO RECORD THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSE SSEE. IT IS MERELY A CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW A S WELL AS ACCORDING TO THE ITA NOS. 3658-3659/DEL/2013 10 VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. USHA INTERN ATIONAL LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 485 (DELHI) [FULL BENCH] THE REASSESSMENT IS INVA LID ON THE PART OF THE AO AND ALSO ON CONFIRMING THE SAME ON THE PART OF THE LD . CIT(A). OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS, WHICH THE LD. COUNSEL HAS REFERRED IN HIS ARGUMENTS. A) ACIT & ORS. VS. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DE ALERSHIP LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HAS AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT, THAT REJECTION OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY THE AO WAS CLEARLY A CHANGE OF O PINION AND THE ORDER REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT SUST AINABLE. B) TECHMAN BUILDWELL P. LTD. VS. ACIT [317 ITR 771] DELHI HIGH COURT. IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHILE A LLOWING THE PETITION, HELD THAT THE 'REASONS TO BELIEVE' NOWHER E HIGH- LIGHTED WHAT, IF AT ALL, WAS THE MATERIAL WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME UPON OR BECAME AWARE OF SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT TRIGGERED THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S CURIOSITY TO IMPEL HIM TO RE-EX AMINE THE FILES AND DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO A COMPLETED ASSES SMENT WAS UNKNOWN. NOR DID THE MATERIALS PLACED IN THE ASSESSMENT SHOW THAT THE ASEESSEE HAD UNJUSTIFIABL Y SUPPRESSED VALID OR RELEVANT INFORMATION WHICH WAS OTHERWISE AVAILABLE. THE ADVERTENCE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF A PROVISION FOR AN UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY POINTS TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER INDULGING IN WHAT AMOUNTED TO NOTHING BUT A MASKED REVIEW. ITA NOS. 3658-3659/DEL/2013 11 WHAT APPEARED TO HAVE EXCITED THE ASSESSING OFFICER 'S MIND WAS THAT THE ORIGINAL ASEESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT FRAM ED PROPERLY AS IT OVERLOOKED CERTAIN MATERIALS WHICH L ED TO LOSS OF REVENUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FIRST INST ANCE DID NOT PERFORM HIS JOB PROPERLY FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT BE FAULTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S OMISSION WAS THE S OLE BASIS FOR ISSUING THE REASSESSMENT NOTICE AND, CONSEQUENT LY, PROCEEDING TO MAKE THE DEMAND. THEREFORE, THE NOTIC E AND THE DEMANDS ARISING CONSEQUENT TO THE NOTICE WERE Q UASHED. 9. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , AS EXPLAINED ABOVE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS OF FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AS WELL AS OTHER DECISIONS AS CITED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GONE WRONG IN DECIDING T HE REOPENING AS VALID. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND T HE PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON, AS AFORESAID IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THAT IN THE PRE SENT CASE THE ISSUE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS INCORRECT AND INVALID. THEREFORE, WE QUASH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS LEGAL ISSUE AND DECIDE THE SAME IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9.1 SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, AS AFORESAID RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES ON MERITS. 10. THE SIMILAR LEGAL ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN THE ANOT HER APPEAL NO. 3659/DEL/2013 (AY 2007-08) IS IDENTICAL TO ITA NO. 3658/2013 (AY 2004- 05), AS ADMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. SINCE WE H AVE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE I.E. RELATING TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 14 8 OF THE I.T. ACT IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE AND QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT, IN ITA NO . 3658/DEL/2013 (A.Y. ITA NOS. 3658-3659/DEL/2013 12 2004-05), FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS AFORESAID , WE ALSO QUASH THE REASSESSMENT IN ANOTHER APPEAL I.E. ITA NO. 3659/DE L/2013 (AY. 2007-08) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE RELATING ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/03/2016. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [L.P. SAHU L.P. SAHU L.P. SAHU L.P. SAHU] ]] ] [ [[ [H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU] ]] ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER DATE 01/3/2016 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES