DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI V. J.P MORGAN SECURITIES INDIA P.LTD ( FORMERLY BEARS STEARNS FINANCIAL SER. P.LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 4449/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3124 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Assessee Lawyers: F V IRANI
• Keywords: Tangible material; Bad and doubtful debts; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4449/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 DCIT - 2(2), ROOM NO.545, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY BEARS STEARNS FINANCIAL SER. P. LTD.) 36-38A, NARIMAN BAHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400021 ( / REVENUE) ( /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AAACB6041M / REVENUE BY SHRI S.S.RANA - DR / ASSESSEE BY SHRI F.V. IRANI ! ' # / DATE OF HEARING : 16/09/2015 !' ' # / DATE OF ORDER: 30/09/2015 !' / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS) -7 MUMBAI, (IN SHORT, CIT(A)), DATED 09/01/2013, FOR T HE MORGAN SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ITA NO.4449/MUM/2013 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 08/12/2011. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE APPEAL. 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN QUASHING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER U/S 143(3) RWS 147 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE REOPE NING OF ASSESSMENT IS VALID IN LAW. 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 2. WE HAVE HEARD MR. S.S.RANA, LD. SENIOR DR ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND MR. F.V. IRANI, LD. COUNSEL ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT HAS BEEN ARG UED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE REOPENING OF THE CASE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS DONE PERFECTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW A ND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN L AW IN TREATING THE SAME AS INVALID. THE LD. DR RELIED UP ON THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS ADD L. CIT (350 ITR 651) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHEN THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MORGAN SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ITA NO.4449/MUM/2013 3 MIND TO THE RELEVANT FACTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEN THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER CAN REOPEN THE CASE TO BRING TO TAX THE ESCAPED INC OME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT WHEN ONCE IT W AS FOUND THAT IF EVEN A SINGLE GROUND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENING WAS VALID AND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD POWERS WITHIN THE LAW FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 2.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS VEHEMEN TLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS). HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION UPON THE COP Y OF THE REASONS RECORDED, ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAG E NUMBER 19. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THERE WAS FULL EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER MATERIAL DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CARRIED O UT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3). IT WAS FURTHER ARGUE D BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE BEYOND THE PER IOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSEES CASE IS PROTECTED BY THE PROVISO TO SEC TION 147 OF THE ACT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS THAT THE REOPENING WAS DONE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ASSUMING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW:- 1. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. VS ACIT 268 ITR 332 (BOM.) 2. BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE VS DDIT (BOMBAY HIGH COURT) (WRIT PETITION NO. 2468 OF 2011) DT. 12 TH JUNE, 2014.(89 CCH 118) 3. IDEA CELLULAR LTD. 301 ITR 407 (BOM.) MORGAN SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ITA NO.4449/MUM/2013 4 4. ICICI HOME FINANCE CO LTD. VS ACIT 25 TAXMAN.COM 241(BOM). 2.2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROU GH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO PE RUSED THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED AND OTHER MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINATI ON AND VALIDITY OF REOPENING DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE BRIEF, FACTS, ARE THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY U/S 139(1) ON 31/10/2004, THE ORIGINAL ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) PASSED ON 20/12/2006. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE CORDED THE REASONS AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DATED 25/03/2011. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE REASONS RECOR DED TO EXAMINE THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 1. RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 WAS FURNI SHED AN 31.10.2004 DISCLOSING INCOME OF RS.12,52,28,910/ - ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) WAS PASSED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.12.2006 DETERMINING ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.12,70,27, 1301-. 2.PERUSAL OF THE P&L ACCOUNT REVEALED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.23389124/- ON ACCOUNT O F LASS AN SALE OF LEASED ASSETS. IN COMPUTING THE INC OME THE ADDITION WAS MADE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2469874/ -- BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ESTIMATED CAST AND THE SALE PRICE FETCHED FROM THE SALE' OF THE ASSETS TAK EN AN REPOSSESSION DUE TO' FAILURE OF THE CUSTOMERS TO' P AY THE LEASE PREMIUM. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.20920150/- (23389124 - 2469874) WAS CONSIDERED AS BAD DEBTS U/ S 36(1)(VII) OF THE 1. T. ACT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSES SEE THE MORGAN SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ITA NO.4449/MUM/2013 5 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM THE CUSTOMERS AND ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE SALE TO' THIRD PARTY WAS A LASS TO' THE COMPANY AND ALL THES E LOSSES WERE BOOKED BY THE COMPANY UNDER THE HEAD 'L ASS AN SALE OF REPOSSESSED CARS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CLAIMED AS EXPENSES U/S 36(1)(VII) WHILE EFFORTS WE RE MADE TO' RECOVER THE OUTSTANDING LOAN. 3. THE DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF SOUTH INDIAN SURGICAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT [201 CTR 289 ] IS RELEVANT. 4. IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE STATEMENT AND SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER T HE SECTION QUOTED IBID HAD NOT BEEN FULFILLED FAR CLAI MING THE LASS AS BAD DEBTS. THEREFORE, THE ALLOWANCE OF RS.2,09,20,150/- AS BAD DEBTS HAD RESULTED IN UNDER ASSESSMENT OF EQUAL AMOUNT WITH A SHORT LEVY OF TAX OF RS.75,05,104/-' , 5. FURTHER PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS 7490085/-- AN ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISION OF THE DOUBTFUL DEBTS. IN COMPUTING THE INCOME AN AMOUNT OF 4259335/- ONLY WA S ADDED BACK. THEREBY THERE WAS AN UNDER ASSESSED INCOME OF 3230750/- 6. THE COMPANY MADE THE PROVISION FAR STANDARD ASSE TS AT 2% IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. DURING THE YE AR THE CAMP ANY HAD REDUCED THE PROVISION TO 1% AND DUE TH IS CHANGE THE EXCESS PROVISION OF 3230751/- HAD BEEN WRITTEN BACK AS INCOME BY DEDUCTION FROM THE EXPENDITURE INSTEAD OF CREDITING THE DAME TO' THE P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DEDUCTED THI S AMOUNT FROM THE PROVISION OF DOUBT FULL DEBTS AND O FFERED ONLY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS 4259335/-. THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORRECT AS THE ENTIRE FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS WAS REQUIRED TO ADD BACK AS AMOUNT OF RS 32307511 - WAS AN INCOME OFFERED FAR TAXATION. 7. THUS THERE WAS AN UNDER ASSESSMENT INCOME AT RS 32,30,7511 WITH A SHORT LEVY OF TAX OF RS. 11,59,03 2/- 8. THUS, I HAVE A REASON TO' BELIEVE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT MADE A FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE IN THE RETURN O F INCOME. AS SUCH I HAVE REASON TO' BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF RS. 86.64 LACS CHARGEABLE TO' TAX UNDER THE PROV ISIONS MORGAN SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ITA NO.4449/MUM/2013 6 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FAR A. Y. 2004-05. 2.3. PERUSAL OF THESE REASONS REVEALS THAT THESE H AVE BEEN RECORDED ON THE BASIS OF PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY TH E LD. COUNSEL THAT ALL THESE ISSUES AS MENTIONED IN THE REASONS, HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS SEEN BY US FROM THE PAPER BOOK THAT ON ALL THE THREE ISSUES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RAISED QUERY DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY HI S QUERY LETTER DATED 19/09/2006. IT IS FURTHER SEEN BY US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ITS REPLY TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 07/11/2006, GIVING RESPONSE TO THE QUERIES WHAT QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TIME TO TIME. THEREAFTER, NOTHING FURTHER WAS ASKED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON THESE ISSUES AND ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS F RAMED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NOW WE ARE REQUIRED TO E XAMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2.4. IT IS NOTED BY US, FIRST OF ALL, THAT REOPENI NG HAS BEEN DONE AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE EXPIRY OF THE ASSESS MENT YEAR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CA N REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION PROVIDED BY THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147. THE FIRST PROVISO LAYS DOW N THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3), NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN U/S 147 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY REASONS OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FUL LY AND TRULY ALL MORGAN SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ITA NO.4449/MUM/2013 7 MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT, FOR TH AT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THUS, THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR. ADMI TTEDLY, IN THIS CASE, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS DONE U/S 143 (3). THUS, THE REOPENING CAN BE DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ONLY IF THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN DI SCLOSING THE MATERIAL FACTS. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT ALL THE ISS UES RAISED IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WERE RAI SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEIR REPLY WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED REPLY AND FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTE R CONSIDERING THESE REPLIES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WA S ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN DISCLOSURE OF MATERI AL FACTS. NO SUCH CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IN THE REASONS RECORDED. THIS ALLEGATION ABOUT THE FAILUR E ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN MAKING FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, HAS BEEN MADE VERY CASUALLY AND VAGUELY IN THE REASONS RECORDED. IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY TH E AO AT ALL THAT AS TO HOW THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF T HE ASSESSEE IN MAKING FULL DISCLOSURE. SO MUCH SO, THE ASSESSING O FFICER, IN THE REASONS RECORDED, HAS NOT EVEN MADE A REFERENCE OF THE QUERY RAISED AND REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE, ON THIS VERY ISSUE, FOR WHICH REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. IT APPEARS THAT EITHER LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS OMITTED TO EVEN REFER TO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S OR THESE HAVE BEEN JUST IGNORED. IN ANY CASE, GIST OF THE M ATTER IS THAT, APPARENTLY, IT IS CERTAINLY NOT A CASE, WHERE IT CO ULD BE HELD MORGAN SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ITA NO.4449/MUM/2013 8 THAT THERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SEE IN DISCLOSING THE MATERIAL FACTS WITH RESPECT TO THE I SSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASONS RECORDED. I T IS NOTED BY US THAT HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HI NDUSTAN LEVER LTD. (SUPRA) CLEARLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD CLEARLY SPECIFY THE MATERIAL FACTS, WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, CERTAIN FACTS WHICH WERE DISCLOSED AND ACCEPTED IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT CANNO T BE SUBSEQUENTLY BRANDED AS FACTS CONCEALED BY THE ASSE SSEE MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANTED TO RE-E XAMINE OR HAVE RELOOK ON THESE FACTS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED B Y US THAT HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BOMBAY STO CK EXCHANGE LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT IT IS FOR THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH HIS ALLEGATION ABOUT THE FAILU RE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULL AND TRUE ALL MATER IAL FACTS. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE OBSERVATION OF HONBLE HIGH CO URT IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE:- IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE NO DETAI LS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (RESPONDENT NO.1) AS TO WH ICH FACT OR MATERIAL WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE PETITIONER THA T LED TO IT'S INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT. THERE IS MERELY A BALD ASSERTION IN THE REASONS THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE O N THE PART OF THE PETITIONER TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL M ATERIAL FACTS WITHOUT GIVING ANY DETAILS THEREOF. THIS BEING THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED NOTICE IS BAD IN LAW AND ON THIS GROUND AL ONE THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO SUCCEED IN THIS WRIT PETITION. MORGAN SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ITA NO.4449/MUM/2013 9 2.5. FURTHER, HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT NO NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAS BEEN RELIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A BELIEF OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AND FOR THIS REASON ALSO THE REOPENING WAS NOT VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ARE USEFU L OF THIS ISSUE AND ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERE NCE. :- 5. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT RESPONDENT NO.1 HA S NOT SET OUT IN THE REASONS WHICH FACT OR OTHER MATERIAL WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE PETITIONER THAT LED TO INCOME ESCA PING ASSESSMENT. IN FACT, ON GOING THROUGH THE REASONS, WE FIND THAT RESPONDENT NO.1 HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION/BEL IEF THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE M ATERIAL ALREADY BEFORE HIM AND NO NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO COME THE SAID CONCLUSION/BELIEF. THIS IS CLEAR FROM THE USE OF TH E WORDS ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS IT IS NOTICED........, FURTHER PERUSAL OF STATEMENT 2 ENCLOSED WITH THE COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME SHOWS....... AND IT IS FURTHER NOTICED.... .. IN THE IMPUGNED NOTICE. 2.6. COMING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS NOTED BY US THAT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RE CORDED, AS REPRODUCED IN THIS ORDER ALSO, SHOWS THAT NO NEW TA NGIBLE MATERIAL HAS BEEN REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BEFORE MAKING A BELIEF OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. WE HAD RA ISED A POINTED QUERY TO LD. DR, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARI NG TO SHOW US IF ANY NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAS BEEN REFERRED T O BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASONS RECORDED. IN RESPO NSE, THE LD. MORGAN SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ITA NO.4449/MUM/2013 10 DR FAIRLY AGREED THAT NO NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAS BEEN REFERRED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE RECORDI NG THE IMPUGNED REASONS. 2.7. WE FIND THAT, UNDER AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE POSITION OF LAW IS NOW VERY CLEA R AND WELL SETTLED. 2.8. THUS, VIEWED FROM ANY ANGLE, THE REOPENING DO NE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT VALID ON BOTH THE COUN TS I.E. REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE WITHOUT REFERRING TO ANY FR ESH TANGIBLE MATERIAL AND REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE AFTER THE EXPI RY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHOUT E STABLISHING THAT THERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SEE IN DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS. CONSEQUENTLY, WE HOL D THAT REOPENING WAS INVALID AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY QUASHED THE SAME, THEREFORE, GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 3. AS A RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN ON 30/09/2015. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (ASHWANI TANEJA) # !$ / JUDICIAL MEMBER % !$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $%! MUMBAI; &$ DATED :30/09/2015 PATEL P.S/. .. MORGAN SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ITA NO.4449/MUM/2013 11 !' &#'() *)+' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ( )* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,)* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. - - ( ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. - - / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. /01 +2 , - ( # 23 , $%! / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 14 5! / GUARD FILE. !' / BY ORDER, ,/( + //TRUE COPY// ,/- . (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $%! / ITAT, MUMBAI