M/s Vijaya Woven Sacks Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore V. ITO, Mangalore

ITA 474/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0348 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Principle of natural justice; Tangible material; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

ITA.474 & 475/BANG/2014 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. I.T.A NO.474/BANG/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) 2. 1. I.T.A NO.475/BANG/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) 1. M/S. VIJAYA WOVEN SACKS P. LTD, PAN : AAACV6746P 2. M/S. VIJAYA POLY PLAST PAN : AACFV2654H NO.182 B, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BYKAMPADY, MANGALURU .. APPELLANTS V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), MANGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. S. VENKATESAN, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI. K. R. NARAYAN, JCIT HEARD ON : 01.06.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 10.06.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE S AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DT.05.09.2013, OF THE CIT (A), M YSURU, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA.474 & 475/BANG/2014 PAGE - 2 02. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEES HAD FILED THEI R RETURNS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,8 0,370/- AND RS.2,08,210/- RESPECTIVELY. DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEES HAD ENTERED INTO CERTAIN T RANSACTIONS WITH ONE M/S. ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD., THROUGH WHICH THEY HAD AGRE ED TO SELL A LAND AT MANGALURU TO M/S. ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD. IT SEEMS THERE WAS A SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF M/S. ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD, AT MUMBAI ON 27.03.2008. AS PER THE AO, DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, SHOWED THAT ASSESSEES HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT DT.04.04.2007 TO SELL CERTAIN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT MANGALURU TO M/S. ASH APURA MINECHEM LTD. IN THE SAID AGREEMENT, CONSIDERATION MENTIONED WAS RS.104 LAKHS AND RS.86 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER IN THE CONVEYANC E DEED REGISTERED ON 15.05.2007, THE CONSIDERATION REFLECTED WAS RS.70 L AKHS AND RS.51 LAKHS ONLY. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF M/S. ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD, REVENUE HAD TAKEN A STATEMENT FROM ONE SHRI. CHETAN SHAH, DIRECTOR OF THE SAID COMPANY. SHRI. CHETAN SHAH HAD OFFERED A SUM OF RS.100 LAKHS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AGAINST LAND PURCHASES MADE BY H IM AT MANGALORE AND TRIVANDRUM. AS PER THE AO COPIES OF THE AGREEMENTS WERE ALSO FOUND AT THE BRANCH OFFICE AT BENGALURU AS WELL. IN THE RET URNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN WAS ONLY RS.70 LAKHS A ND RS.50.60 LAKHS ITA.474 & 475/BANG/2014 PAGE - 3 AGAINST THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.104 LAKHS AND RS.86 LAKHS SHOWN IN AGREEMENTS RESPECTIVELY. AO WAS OF THE OPINION THA T THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND NOTICES U/S.148 OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEES. ASSESSEES IN REPLY REQUESTED THE AO TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED AS THE ONE RETUR NED IN PURSUANCE TO SUCH NOTICE. ASSESSEES ALSO SOUGHT REASONS FOR THE REOP ENING. IT SEEMS THE AO COMMUNICATED SUCH REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE ON 04.01. 2011 AND THE ASSESSEES RECEIVED SUCH COMMUNICATION ON 10.01.2011 . THEREAFTER THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONTINUED WHEREIN ASSESSEE S ASSERTED THAT WHAT WAS RECEIVED ON SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS ONLY THE C ONSIDERATION WHICH WERE MENTIONED IN THE REGISTEREDCONVEYANCE DEED AND NOTH ING MORE. AS PER ASSESSEE, CEO OF M/S. ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD, MS. G EETHA NERUKA HAD AFFIRMED THAT WHAT WAS PAID BY M/S. ASHAPURA MINECH EM LTD, WERE ONLY THE CONSIDERATION STATED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED AND NOTHING MORE. AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI. CHETAN S HAH, DIRECTOR OF M/S. ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD GROUP, WAS MORE RELIABLE AND CONFIRMATION LETTER GIVEN BY MS. GEETHA NERUKA DID NOT HAVE MUCH CREDEN CE. 04. VIS-A-VIS, OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES T O THE REOPENING, AO STATED THAT SUCH REOPENING WAS RIGHTLY DONE. REBUT TING THE ARGUMENT OF THE ITA.474 & 475/BANG/2014 PAGE - 4 ASSESSEES THAT PROCEEDINGS OUGHT HAVE BEEN INITIATE D U/S.153C OF THE ACT, AO HELD THAT HE WAS FREE TO HAVE RECOURSE TO SECTIO N 148 OF THE ACT, IN PREFERENCE TO SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. HE THUS REC OMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEES BY SUBSTITUTING THE C ONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENTS TO WHAT WERE RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEES CONCERNED. 05. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEES MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). ONE OF THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEES BEFORE THE CIT (A) Q UESTIONED THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S.148 OF THE ACT. ASS ESSEES ALSO ASSAILED THE ADDITION MADE IN COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, CITI NG THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I) SHRI. CHETAN SHAH, DIRECTOR, WHOSE STATEMENT WAS RELIED ON BY THE AO FOR MAKING THE ADDITION WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE F OR CROSS EXAMINATION. II) MS. GEETHA NERUKA, WHO WAS THE CEO OF M/S. ASHA PURA MINECHEM LTD, AND WHO HAD SIGNED THE SALE AGREEMENT AS WELL AS THE CONVEYANCE DEED HAD CONFIRMED TO HAVE PAID NOTHING MORE THAN WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE RESPECTIVE CONVEYANCE DEEDS. 06. CIT (A) SOUGHT A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. IN THE REMAND REPORT AO REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN BY HIM IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE AO, REASONS WERE COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEES AND THE REOPENING ITA.474 & 475/BANG/2014 PAGE - 5 WAS RIGHTLY DONE. AO ALSO STATED THAT ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 07. ON THE ABOVE REMAND REPORT, ASSESSEE FILED A RE BUTTAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). IN SUCH REBUTTAL, ASSESSEES ARGUED THAT ITS O BJECTIONS TO THE REOPENING WERE DISPOSED OFF BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THIS WAS CONTRARY TO LAW. FURTHER AS PER THE ASSESSEES, OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI. CHETAN SHAH WAS NEVER GIVEN AND THIS WAS CONTRARY T O THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KISHANCHAND CHELL ARAM V. CIT [125 ITR 713]. CIT (A) SOUGHT A SECOND REMAND REPORT F ROM THE AO ON THE ABOVE ASPECTS. IN THE SECOND REMAND REPORT, AO MEN TIONED THAT THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF M/S. ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD, WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEES FOR EXAMI NATION. AS PER THE AO, COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI. CHE TAN SHAH WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEES. AS PER THE AO THOUGH NO SE PARATE ORDERS WERE PASSED ON THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES AG AINST REOPENING, SUCH OBJECTIONS WERE APPROPRIATELY DEALT WITH AND DISPOS ED OFF IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE AO, JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) L TD V. ITO 259 ITR ITA.474 & 475/BANG/2014 PAGE - 6 19] ONLY REQUIRED THE AO TO DISPOSE OFF THE OBJECTI ONS BY A SPEAKING ORDER AND THIS WAS RIGHTLY DONE BY HIM. 08. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEES AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT TH E OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST REOPENING HAVING BEEN ADDRESS ED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE CHALLENGE TO REOPENING WAS DE VOID OF MERITS. IN SO FAR AS THE ADDITION MADE FOR CAPITAL GAINS WAS CONC ERNED, CIT (A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PRIMARY DOCUMENT WHICH WAS BEI NG RELIED ON WAS THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION SHOWN I N SUCH AGREEMENTS COULD NOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS WAS TRUE ESPECIALLY SINCE BOTH THE ASSESSEES AS WELL AS M/S. ASHAPURA M INECHEM LTD, WERE PARTIES TO SUCH AGREEMENT. FURTHER ACCORDING TO HI M, SHRI. CHETAN SHAH IN HIS STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE PR EMISES OF M/S. ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD, HAD AFFIRMED PAYMENTS TO HAVE BEEN MA DE BY HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SALE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT MANGALURU AND ALSO MADE DISCLOSURE OF MORE THAN RS.100 CRORES AS SOURCE FOR SUCH INVESTMENT. HE THUS CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF THE AO . 09. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AR STRONGLY ASSAILING THE OR DERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES HAD SOUGHT FOR REASONS AND THESE WERE ITA.474 & 475/BANG/2014 PAGE - 7 GIVEN BY THE AO. AS PER THE LD.AR, ASSESSEES HAD V IDE THEIR LETTER DT.12.11.2011 OBJECTED TO THE REOPENING AND SUBMITT ED TO THE AO THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT WAS INVALID SINCE SUCH REASONS DID NOT DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION. AS PER THE LD. AR, ONCE ASSESSEES HAD OBJECTED TO THE REOPENING, AO COULD NOT HAVE PROCEE DED WITH THE ASSESSMENT UNLESS AND UNTIL SUCH OBJECTIONS WERE DI SPOSED OFF THROUGH A SEPARATE SPEAKING ORDER. RELYING ON THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MGM EXPORTS V. DCIT [323 ITR 331], GENERAL MOTORS P. LTD V. DCIT [354 ITR 244], AS WELL AS HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RABO INDIA FINANCE LTD [346 IT R 81], LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL THE OBJECTIONS AGAI NST REASSESSMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEES WERE DISPOSED OFF, REASSESSMENT ORDER S COULD NOT HAVE BEEN VALIDLY DONE. FURTHER ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR A CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHRI. CHETAN SHAH, DIRECTOR OF M/S. ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD, WHOSE STATEMENT WAS RELIED ON, FOR MAKING THE ADDITION, WAS NOT GRANTED. THIS WAS AGAINST THE RULES OF NATURAL JUS TICE AND ACCORDING TO LD. DR WENT AGAINST THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM (SUPRA) AND THAT OF ANDAMAN T IMBER INDUSTRIES V. CIT [127 DTR 241]. ACCORDING TO HIM NON-ADHERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE RENDERED THE PROCEEDINGS VOID. ITA.474 & 475/BANG/2014 PAGE - 8 10. ON MERITS, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT MS. GEETHA NER UKA, CEO, OF M/S. ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD , WHO WAS A PARTY TO THE AGRE EMENT HAD CONFIRMED THAT NOTHING MORE THAN WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE CO NVEYANCE DEED WAS PAID BY THEM. SHE WAS THE CEO OF M/S. ASHAPURA MIN ECHEM LTD AND LOWER AUTHORITIES ACCORDING TO HIM, FELL IN ERROR I N RELYING ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE SAID COMPANY IN P REFERENCE TO THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY THE CEO. 11. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IN SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.148 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE PARTIES THAT ASSESSEES HAD R EQUIRED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING FROM THE AO AND THESE WERE FURNISHED. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT ASSESSEES THROUGH THEIR LETTERS DT.12.11.2011 HAD OBJECTED TO THE REOPENING. RELEVANT PART OF THE LETTER DT.12.11.20 11, IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 9. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE IS INVALID AS THE R EASONS ARE RECORDED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. IT IS ALS O SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE IS INVALID AS THE PROCESS OF THE RE ASONING IS NOT DISCLOSED. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE IS INVALID AS THE REASONS DO NOT DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE IS INVALID AS THE REASONS ARE NOT GIVEN WITH THE NOTICE. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TH E NOTICE INVALID AS THE REASONS NOT GIVEN WITHIN REASONABLE TIME. 10. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE IN NOT VAL ID. THE NOTICE ISSUED IS BAD FOR WANT OF PROPER JURISDICTIO N. THE AO'S ITA.474 & 475/BANG/2014 PAGE - 9 JURISDICTION TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT DEPENDS UPON T HE ISSUANCE OF A VALID NOTICE. THE NOTICE ITSELF SHOUL D BE CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL. ISSUING OF A NOTICE IS NOT A MERE FORMALITY. IF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM IS INVALID F OR ANY REASON, THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING TAKEN BY HIM WOULD BECOME VOI D FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CIT VS KURBA N HUSSAIN IBRAHIMJI MITHIBORWALA (1971 82 ITR 821 (SC ) AND CIT VS RAM DAS DEOKINANDAN PRASACI (HELP) (2005) 27 7 ITR 197 (ALL). 11. WE HOPE THAT THE DETAILED OBJECTIONS ARE ACCEPT ABLE AND CONSZ6 - RING THE OBJECTIONS JUDICIOUSLY, YOUR GOODSELF WOULD DROP THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND SPARE US FRO M THE UNNECESSARY ORDEAL ON MERITS. THE PROPOSED REASSESS MENT IS CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND OF BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONE OUS WITH POWER BEING EXERCISED WITHOUT DUE APPLICATION OF MI ND AND MECHANICALLY IN STEREO TYPE MANNER. THE REASSESSMEN T WOULD BE IN TOTAL DEFIANCE OF LEGAL PROVISIONS/JUDICIAL D ECISIONS AND WOULD FAIL TO WITHSTAND JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AND THE V ERY FOUNDATION TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT WOULD BE UNSUSTAINABLE IN TE RMS OF ISSUANCE OF INVALID NOTICE U/S 148. WE HOPE THAT TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE WOULD BE JUDICIOUSLY DEALT WITH AND THE LEARNE D ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD REFRAIN FROM MAKING A HIGH PITCHED AS SESSMENT. 12. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE AO HAD DISPOSE D OF SUCH OBJECTIONS ONLY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FINALLY PASSED U/S.143 (3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT AND NOT THROUGH A SEPARATE ORDER. QUESTION BEFORE ME IS WHETHER IT IS OPEN FOR AN AO TO DECIDE ON THE OBJECTIONS TO A NOTICE U /S.148 OF THE ACT, THROUGH A COMPOSITE ORDER DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTIO NS AND MAKING AN ASSESSMENT. HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS P. LTD [SUPRA] HELD AS UNDER AT PARA 24 OF THE JUDGMEN T : ITA.474 & 475/BANG/2014 PAGE - 10 24. FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE WHERE NO ORDER HAS BEEN PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECIDING THE OBJECTION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND ASSESSMENT ORDER H AS BEEN PASSED OR THE ORDER DECIDING AN OBJECTION UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND A SSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED OR THE OBJECTION FILED UNDER SECTION 148 HAS BEEN DECIDED ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IF TH E OBJECTION UNDER SECTION 148 HAS BEEN REJECTED WITHOUT THERE B EING ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO FORM AN OPINION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASS ESSMENT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF REASONS HAVING DIRECT LINK WITH THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF, THE WRIT COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 CAN QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE WRIT PETITION FIL ED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S MANDATED TO DECIDE THE OBJECTION TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8 AND SUPPLY OR COMMUNICATE IT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE GETS A N OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER IN A WRIT PETITION. THEREAFT ER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY PASS THE REASSESSMENT ORDER. WE HOLD TH AT IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE OBJECTI ON TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 BY A COMPOSITE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO, FIRST DECIDE THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE FILED UNDER SECTION 148 AND SERVE A COPY OF THE ORD ER ON THE ASSESSEE. AND AFTER GIVING SOME REASONABLE TIME TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CHALLENGING HIS ORDER, IT WAS OPEN TO HIM TO PA SS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS WAS NOT DONE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE ORDER ON THE OBJECTION TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER THE ACT D ESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 13. SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RABO INDIA FINANCE LTD (SUPRA) ALSO. NOT F OLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVE SHAFTS INDIA LTD, ITA.474 & 475/BANG/2014 PAGE - 11 (SUPRA), IN OUR OPINION DOES RENDER THE ASSESSMENT VOID. ASSESSEES ARE DEPRIVED OF A VALUABLE RIGHT TO MOVE HIGHER JUDICIA L FORUM, IF IT IS NOT GIVEN THE REASONS WHY AO WAS REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS AGA INST THE REOPENING. 14. THAT APART, WE ALSO FIND THAT FOR THE ADDITION OF CAPITAL GAINS, AO HAD RELIED ON THE AGREEMENTS OF SALE WHICH REFLECTED AM OUNTS, DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED. IN BOT H THESE DOCUMENTS M/S. ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD, WAS REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO, MS. GEETHA NERUKA. SAID MS. GEETHA NERUKA HAD LATER ON GIVEN A CONFIRMATION LETTER WHEREIN IT WAS AFFIRMED BY HER THAT NOTHING MORE TH AN WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED WAS PAID BY THE COMPANY. IF THE AO WANTED TO TREAT THE STATEMENT TAKEN FROM THE DIRECTOR, SHRI. CHETAN SHAH, AS MORE CREDIBLE THAN THAT OF MS. GEETHA NERUKA, HE OUGHT H AVE DEFINITELY GIVEN A CHANCE FOR CROSS EXAMINING SHRI. CHETAN SHAH. THIS WAS NOT GIVEN DESPITE ASSESSEES SPECIFIC REQUEST. TAKING ALL THESE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DONE O N THE ASSESSEES WERE INVALID. SUCH REASSESSMENTS STAND QUASHED. ITA.474 & 475/BANG/2014 PAGE - 12 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT M EMBER MCN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR