M/s. Hi Gain Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4520/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3174 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH GOEL CAS
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Accommodation entries; Competent authority; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JM ITA NO. 4520 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2001 - 0 2 HI GAIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 181 - C, WESTER N AVENUE, SAINIK FARMS, NEW DELHI - 110062 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A A CH0276J ASSESSEE BY : SH. VED JAIN & ASHISH GOEL, CAS REVENUE BY : SH. AM R IT LAL , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 09 .05 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 . 05 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.05 .2014 OF LD. CIT(A) - X XVII , NEW DELHI . 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] IS BAD, BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON THE FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED, B OTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147, READ WITH SECTION 148, IS BAD AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS THE CONDITION AND PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUTE HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED AND COMPLIED WITH. ITA NO. 4520 /DEL /201 4 HI GAIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE LEARNED A.O. ARE BAD IN THE EYE OF LAW AS THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ARE BAD IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ARE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS & IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 148 IS BAD IN LAW, AS THE SAME IS INITIATED WITH THE APPROVAL OF ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 151(1) WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT IN CASES WHERE AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) HAS BEEN PASSED, NO NOTICE CAN BE ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS WITHOUT APPROVAL OF AN OFFICER NOT BELOW THE RANK OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED A.O. IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS AS THE SAME HAS BEEN REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF REASONS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY WHISPER THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED DUE TO THE FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT, AS THE SAME HAS BEEN REOPENED AFTER A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3). ITA NO. 4520 /DEL /201 4 HI GAIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 3 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER PASS ED BY LEARNED A.O. IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3). 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HA S ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED A.O. UNDER SECTION 147 IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS, AS THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT SERVICE OF STATUTORY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY AO IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS AS THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT RECEIVING STATUTORY NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND SEC TION 142(1) OF THE ASSESSEE. 9(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.73, 11, 000/ - AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. (II) THAT THE ABOVE - SAID ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY INDULGING IN SURMISES CONJECTURE AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 10. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONF IRMING ABOVE - SAID ADDITION IGNORING ITA NO. 4520 /DEL /201 4 HI GAIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 4 THE FACT THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL COLLECTED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROVIDING COPY OF THE SAME & PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE SAME. 11. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD , AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IT IS GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION FOR INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AC T). 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO GATHERED THE INFORMATION FROM DIT(INV.), NEW DELHI THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF RS.4,72,000/ - FROM M /S ABN ALUMINUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. BY CHEQUE NO. 486211 DATED 05.03.2001. ON THE BASIS OF SAID INFORMATION, A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 31.03.2008 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON LAST KNOWN ADDRESS WITH THE PRIOR APPR OVAL OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, RANGE - 12, NEW DELHI. SINCE NO RETURN OF INCOME IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS FILED. THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATION IN REGARD TO PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT EX - PARTE U/S 147/144 OF THE ACT AT AN INCOME OF RS.73,11,000/ - . 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. ITA NO. 4520 /DEL /201 4 HI GAIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 5 CIT(A), HOWEVER DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON 12.10.20 01 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.93,318 / - . A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 28.10.2002. A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 13 OF THE ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE REPLIED ON 10.12.2002, A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 14 OF TH E ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AO MADE THE PROPER INQUIRIES RELATING TO THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NOS. 52 TO 73 OF THE ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK WHICH ARE THE COPIES OF THE VARI OU S LE TTERS WRITTEN BY THE AO U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE DIFFERENT SHARE APPLICANT S AND REPLIES GIVEN BY THEM ALONGWITH RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 28.02.20 03, A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 258 OF THE ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 28.02.2003. IT WAS STATED THAT THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 31.03.2008 I.E. AFTER FOUR YEARS OF COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT ON 28.02.2003 AND THE APPROVAL WAS TAKEN BY THE AO FROM THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 12, NEW DELHI BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. A REFERENCE WAS MADE ITA NO. 4520 /DEL /201 4 HI GAIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 6 TO PAGE NO. 259 OF THE ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S 151 OF THE ACT WAS THE COMMISSIONER OR THE PR. COMMISSIONER AND NOT THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER. THEREFORE, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS BAD IN LAW. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT SMC BENCH, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD - 2, MOHINDERGARH VS SMT. SARTI DEVI AND SH. RATI RAM IN ITA NOS. 3098 & 3099/DEL/2014 ORDER DATED 27.10.2015 (COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS FURNISHED WHICH IS PLACED ON THE RECORD) . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING WAS DONE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING AND NO MIND HAS BEEN APPLIED BY THE AO, THEREFORE, THE REOPENING WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: SIGNATURE HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS ITO AND ANR. (2011) 338 ITR 51 (DEL.) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 VS G & G PHARMA LTD. 384 ITR 147 (DEL.) 7 . IN HIS R IVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS AND GETTING THE INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING. THEREFORE, THE REOPENING WAS J USTIFIED. ITA NO. 4520 /DEL /201 4 HI GAIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 7 8 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2008 THAT THE REOPENING U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS INI TIATED BY THE AO AFTER OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF THE ADD. COMMISSIONER, RANGE - 12, NEW DELHI . THIS FACT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE AO IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE NO. 1. HOWEVER, AS PER THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 151 OF THE ACT, THE RE OPENING AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR CAN BE DONE ONLY AFTER THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER BUT NOT ON THE APPROVAL OF THE ADDL. COMMISS IONER AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. 9. A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT SMC BENCH, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD - 2, MOHINDERGARH VS SMT. SARTI DEVI AND SH. RATI RAM (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 8 OF THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2015 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 8 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ACCORDING TO SECTION 151(1) OF THE IT. ACT, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE 4 YEARS FRO M THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT SHALL BE ISSUED UNLESS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY ITA NO. 4520 /DEL /201 4 HI GAIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 8 THE AO THAT IS FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. IN MY VIEW THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE IS FALL UNDER SECTION 151( 1) OF THE I.T. ACT AND NOT U/S. 151(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO SECTION 151(2) IN THE CASES OTHER THAN THE CASE FALLEN UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 151, NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED U/S. 148 BY THE AO, WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF JCIT, UNLESS THE JCIT IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH AO, THAT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH NOTICES. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE CASE IS FALLEN U/ S. 151(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REOPENED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS AND IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE APPROVAL/SATISFACTION SHOULD BE FROM THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER ONLY. IN THE PRES ENT CASE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REOPENED AND NOTICE U/S. 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ADDL. CIT, THEREFORE, THE NOTICE U/S. 148 IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. LD. CIT(A) HAS RIG H TLY DECLARED INVALID THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT ISSUED ON 28.3.2011 FOR TH E ASSTT. Y EAR IN DISPUTE I.E. 2004 - 05, WHICH IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER UPON HIS SATISFACTION. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE NOTICE IN DISPUTE IS INVALID AND HAS RIGHTLY QUASHED THE SAME BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS DECISIONS WHICH INCLUDE S GHANSHYAM K. KHABRANI VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHER DIVISION BENCH 346 ITR 443; DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SPL'S SIDHARTH LIMITED DIVISION BENCH 345 ITR 223 AS WELL AS THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF ANIRUDHSINGH JI KARAN SINGH JI JEDEJA VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT (1995) 5 SSC 302. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ITA NO. 4520 /DEL /201 4 HI GAIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 9 ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RENDERED BY T HE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AS WELL AS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, I UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AGAINST THE REVENUE. 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE REOPENING BEYOND 4 YEARS HAS BEEN DONE BY GETTING THE APPROVAL O F ADDL. COMMISSIONER AND NOT FROM THE COMMISSIONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER. THEREFORE, THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS INVALID. 11. FURTHERMORE, THIS CASE HAS BEEN REOPENED BY THE AO ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM DIT(INV.), NEW DELHI AND NOT BY APPLYING HIS OWN MIND. THEREFORE, THE REOPENING WAS NOT VALID AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 VS G & G PHARMA LTD. 384 ITR 147 (SUPRA) WHEREIN , IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: THE BASIC REQUIREMENT OF LAW FOR REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT IS APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TO THE MATERIALS PRODUCED PRIOR TO REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, TO CONCLUDE THAT HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. UNLESS THAT BASIC JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT IS SATISFIED A POST MORTEM EXERCISE OF ANALYSING MATERIALS PRODUCED SUBSEQUENT TO THE REOPENING WILL NOT MAKE AN INHERENTLY DEFECTIVE REASSESSMENT ORDER VALID. ITA NO. 4520 /DEL /201 4 HI GAIN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 10 IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD AS UNDER: WITHOUT FORMING A PRIMA FACIE OPINION, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH MATERIAL, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO HAVE SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE BASIC JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE MATERIAL PROD UCED BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE FOR REASSESSMENT. WITHOUT ANALYSING AND FORMING A PRIMA FACIE OPINION ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL PRODUCED, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONCLUDE THAT HE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSME NT. 12 . IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION , WE ARE OF THE CONFIRMED VIEW THAT THE REOPENING DONE BY THE AO BY ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT VALID. THEREFORE, THE REASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO IS HELD TO BE INVALID . 13 . IN THE RESULT, T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ( ORDER PRON OUNCED I N THE COURT ON 15 /05/2017) SD/ - SD/ - (SUCHITRA KAMBLE ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 15 /05 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR