Shree Shyam Khatu Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4810/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7775 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 29-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIMA BANWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Tangible material; Accommodation entries; Onus to prove; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68; 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDI CIAL MEMBER ITA NO: 4810/DEL/2010 AY: 2001-02 SHREE SHYM KHATU INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., VS ITO, C/O JAI RAJ ASSOCIATES 208, WARD 8(1), HANS BHAWAN, 1BSG MARG, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI-110006 (PAN: AAECS8564J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV. & SHRI SOMIL AGGARWAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ANIMA BANWAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.05.2016 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.12.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) XI, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ENTRIES OF RS. 5 LACS FROM M/S MELODE ELECTRONICS P VT. LTD. THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T 1961AND AS NOTED IN THE ORDER SHEET WERE AS UNDER:- I.T.A. NO. 4810/D/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 2 'INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE O/O THE DIT(INV) -I, NEW DELHI REVEALED THAT M/S SHREE SHYAM KHATU INVESTMENT P LTD HAS INT RODUCED UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING FY 00-01 THROU GH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW:- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEF THAT TAXABLE INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,00,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 147 OF IT ACT. 1961. THEREFORE, IT IS PROPOSED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IN ORDER TO TAX THE ABOVE SAID ESCAPED INCOME.. 3. AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE IN VESTOR AND ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS THE AOS OPINION THAT THESE ENTRIES WERE BOGUS AND IT WAS ASSESSEES OWN INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND AN ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS WAS MADE. THE ASSESSEE QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AS WELL AS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON MERITS. THE LD. CIT (A) UPHELD THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF REASON S RECORDED. ON MERITS ALSO, THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINE SS OF THE INVESTOR AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. AS PER THE LD. CI T (A), THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE INV ESTOR AND AS SUCH THE OTHER TWO CRITERIA VIZ. CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS HAD LOST THEIR SIGNIFICANCE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- J J J J BENEFICIARY \ NAME BENEFICIARY BANK NAME & BRANCH VALUE OF ENTRY INSTRUMENT NO. DATE NAME OF ACCOUNT BANK & BRANCH OF ENTRY GIVING A/C A/C NO. OF ENTRY. SHREE SHYAM KHATU INVEST - MENT P LTD SYNDICATE BANK, HAUZ KHAS, N.D. 5,00,000 244593 28/04/00 MELODE ELECTRONIC P LTD JAYA LAXMI COOP. BANK, FETEH PURI, DELHI 2332 I.T.A. NO. 4810/D/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 3 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER APPEALS IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REASSESSMENT U/S 147/148 IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000 MADE U/S 68 BY THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BY NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE A PPELLANT, DEPRIVING THE RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING REOP ENING OF THE CASES U/S 147/148 AS HELD BY LAW OF THE LAND. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIG HT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FORGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTI ON TOWARDS REASONS RECORDED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MECHANICALLY PROCEEDED TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. L D. AR CONTENDED THAT THE AO SIMPLY PROCEEDED ON THE INFORMATION OF THE INVESTIG ATION WING WITHOUT ANALYSING AND APPLYING HIS MIND TOWARDS THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION S. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SO CALLED INFORMATION SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE INV ESTIGATION WING HAD NOT BEEN DULY PROCESSED BY THE AO AND THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AO HAD APPLIED HIS MIND IN FORMING A BELIEF WHICH WOUL D RESULT IN THE REASON TO BELIEVE AS REQUIRED TO PROCEED U/S 147 AND 148 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961. LD. COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE REASONS RECORDED CLEA RLY SHOW THAT THE AO SIMPLY PROCEEDED IN A MECHANICAL MANNER AND THAT THERE WAS A CLEAR LACK OF APPLICATION OF INDEPENDENT MIND BY THE AO PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, 1961. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED HIS RELIANCE O N THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. G&G PHARMA INDIA LIMITED VS. ITO, WARD 12(1), NEW D ELHI IN ITA NO. 3149/DEL/2013 OF ITAT DELHI BENCH C. 2. RASALIKA TRADING & INVESTMENT CO. (P) LTD. VS ITO, WARD 15(4), NEW DELHI IN I.T.A. NO. 3103/DEL/2013 OF IOTAT DELHI BENCH F . I.T.A. NO. 4810/D/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 4 6. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND STATED THAT THE AO HAD REOPENED THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF V ARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCES. LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. AR ARE ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS AND AS SUCH WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE APPEAL BEFOR E US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US AND AFTER PERUSING THE REASONS RECORDED WE FIND THA T THE REOPENING IS BASED ENTIRELY BY MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED F ROM THE INVESTIGATION WING. THE REASONS ARE AT BEST VAGUE AND THE SATISFACTION OF T HE AO IS NOT BASED ON ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL. THE AO HAS MECHANICALLY ISSUED N OTICES U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND SO AS TO GIVE AN IN DEPENDENT CONCLUSION THAT HE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE DRAW OUR SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGMEN T OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN ITA NO. 545/2015 DATED 8.10.2015 IN THE CA SE OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 VS. G&G PHARMA INDIA LTD. IN WHICH TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS RECAPITULATED THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREM ENT FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT AS UNDER:- 9. THE COURT AT THE OUTSET PROPOSES TO RECAPITU LATE THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S ECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT BY REFERRING TO TWO DECISIONS OF THE SUP REME COURT. IN CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL V. SP CHALIHA (1971) 79 ITR 603, T HE SUPREME I.T.A. NO. 4810/D/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 5 COURT WAS DEALING WITH A CASE WHERE THE AO HAD RECE IVED CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHOWING THAT THE ALLEGED CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NAME-LE NDERS AND THE TRANSACTIONS ARE BOGUS. THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUS ION THAT THERE WERE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE SUPREME COURT DISAGREED AND OBSERVE D THAT THE AO HAD NOT EVEN COME TO A PRIMA FACIE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS TO WHICH HE REFERRED WERE NOT GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. HE APPEARED TO HAVE HAD ONLY A VAGUE FELLING THAT THEY MAY BE 'BO GUS TRANSACTIONS'.' IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT: BEFORE ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER S. 148, THE ITO MUST HAVE EITHER REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT BY REASON OF THE OMISSION O R FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER S. 139 FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR TO THE ITO OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THA T YEAR, INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THAT Y EAR OR ALTERNATIVELY NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THERE HAS BEEN N O OMISSION OR FAILURE AS MENTIONED ABOVE ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SEE, THE ITO HAS IN CONSEQUENCE OF INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED A SSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR. UNLESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CL. (A) OR CL. (B) OF S. 147 ARE SATISFIED, THE ITO HAS NO JURISDI CTION TO ISSUE A NOTICE UNDER S. 148. THE SUPREME COURT CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS NOT SATISFI ED THAT THE ITO HAD ANY MATERIAL BEFORE HIM WHICH COULD SATISFY THE REQUIRE MENTS UNDER SECTION 147 AND THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 148. 10. IN ACIT V. DHARIYA CONSTRUCTION CO.(2010)328 ITR 515 THE SUPREME COURT IN A SHORT ORDER HELD AS UNDER: HAVING EXAMINED THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN THIS C ASE, THE DEPARTMENT SOUGHT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE OPINION GIVEN BY THE DVO. OPINION OF THE DVO PER SE IS NOT INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF REOPENING ASSESSMEN T UNDER S. 147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE AO HAS TO APPLY HIS MI ND TO THE INFORMATION, IF ANY, COLLECTED AND MUST FORM A BELI EF THEREON. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CIVIL A PPEAL. THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMEN T. 11. THE ABOVE BASIC REQUIREMENT OF SECTIONS 147/14 8 HAS BEEN REITERATED IN NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THIS CO URT. RECENTLY, THIS COURT RENDERED A DECISION DATED 22ND SEPTEMBER 2015 IN IT A NO. 356 OF 2013 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I I V. MULTIPLEX TRADING AND INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.) WHERE THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED BEYO ND THE PERIOD OF FOUR I.T.A. NO. 4810/D/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 6 YEARS. THIS COURT CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE SU PREME COURT IN PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ( S U P R A ) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN M/S HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. (P) LTD. V. CIT 308 ITR 38 (DEL). THE COURT NOTED THAT A MATERIAL CHANGE HAD BEEN BRO UGHT ABOUT TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 1 989 AND OBSERVED: 29. IT IS AT ONCE SEEN THAT THE AMENDMENT IN SECTI ON 147 OF THE ACT BROUGHT ABOUT A MATERIAL CHANGE IN LAW W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL, 1989. SECTION 147(A) AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO 1ST APRIL 1989 REQUIRED THE AO TO HAVE A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT (A) THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND (B) THAT SUCH E SCAPEMENT IS BY REASON OF OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A RETURN OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MA TERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT YEAR. AFTER T HE AMENDMENT, ONLY ONE SINGULAR REQUIREMENT IS TO BE F ULFILLED UNDER SECTION 147(A) AND THAT IS, THAT THE AO HAS R EASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT. HOWEVER, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT PROV IDES A COMPLETE BAR FOR REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, AFTER THE EXP IRY OF FOUR YEARS. HOWEVER, THIS PROSCRIPTION IS NOT APPLICABLE WHERE THE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACC OUNT OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETUR N OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT. THUS, IN ORDER TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT WHICH IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE CONDITION THAT THERE HAS BEEN A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO TRULY AND FULLY DISCLOS E ALL MATERIAL FACTS MUST BE CONCLUDED WITH CERTAIN LEVEL OF CERTA INTY. IT IS IN THE AFORESAID CONTEXT THAT THIS COURT IN M/S HARYAN A ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. (P) LTD. (SUPRA ) EXPLAINED THAT THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAI (SUPRA) MAY NOT BE ENTIRELY APPLICABLE SINCE THE SAME WAS IN RESPECT O F SECTION 147(A) AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT. 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AFTER SETTING OUT FOUR ENT RIES, STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A SINGLE DATE I.E. 10 TH FEBRUARY 2003, FROM FOUR ENTITIES WHICH WERE TERMED AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES , WHICH INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION, T HE AO STATED : I HAVE ALSO PERUSED VARIOUS MATERIALS AND REPORT FROM INVESTIGA TION WING AND ON THAT BASIS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS I NTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IT ITS BANK ACCOUNT BY WAY OF ABO VE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ABOVE CONCLUSION IS UNHELPFUL IN UNDE RSTANDING WHETHER THE AO APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE MATERIALS THAT HE TALKS ABO UT PARTICULARLY SINCE HE DID NOT DESCRIBE WHAT THOSE MATERIALS WERE. ONCE THE DA TE ON WHICH THE SO CALLED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IS KNOWN, IT WO ULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT FOR THE AO, IF HE HAD IN FACT UNDERTAKEN THE EXERCISE, TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THOSE VERY ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED IN THE I.T.A. NO. 4810/D/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 7 ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN TEND ERED ALONG WITH THE RETURN, WHICH WAS FILED ON14 TH NOVEMBER, 2004 AND WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. WITHOUT FORMING A PRIMA FACIE OPINION, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH MATERIAL, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE AO TO HAVE SIMPLY CONCLUDED: IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN ITS BANK BY WAY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. IN THE CONSIDERED VIEW OF T HE COURT, IN LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED WITH SUFFICIENT CLARITY BY SUPREM E COURT IN THE DECISIONS DISCUSSED HEREINBEFORE, THE BASIC REQUIRE MENT THAT THE AO MUST APPLY HIS MIND TO THE MATERIALS IN ORDER TO HA VE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS MISSING IN THE PRESENT CASE. 13. MR. SWHNEY TOOK THE COURT THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) TO SHOW HOW THE CIT (A) DISCUSSED THE MATERIALS PRODUCED DU RING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE COURT WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT THIS I S IN THE NATURE OF A POSTMORTEM EXERCISE AFTER THE EVENT OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT HAS TAKEN PLACE. WHILE THE CIT MAY HAVE PROCEEDED ON TH E BASIS THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS VALID, THIS DOES NO T SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW THAT PRIOR TO THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMEN T, THE AO HAS TO, APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE MATERIALS, CONCLUDE THAT HE HAS REA SON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. UNLESS THAT BASIC JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT IS SATISFIED, A POST MORTEM EXERCISE OF ANALYSING MATERIALS PRODUCED SUBSEQUENT TO THE REOPENING WILL NOT RESCU E AN INHERENTLY DEFECTIVE REOPENING ORDER FROM INVALIDITY. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS MERELY RELIED ON THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING BUT IT IS APPARENT THAT H E HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE MATERIALS WHICH WERE BEFORE HIM. IN OUR VIEW, WITHO UT FORMING A PRIMA FACIE OPINION ON THE BASIS OF ONLY THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATIO N WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, IT WAS NOT LEGAL FOR THE AO TO HAVE SIM PLY CONCLUDED THAT HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT. UNLESS THE BASIC REQUIREMENT IS SATISFIED, AN EXERCISE IN ANALYSING THE MATERIALS PRODUCED SUBSEQUENT TO THE REOPENING WILL NOT RESCUE AN INHERENTLY DEFE CTIVE REOPENING ORDER FROM INVALIDITY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF PR. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 VS. I.T.A. NO. 4810/D/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 8 G&G PHARMA INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE REOP ENING OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS BAD IN LAW AND WE ACCORDINGLY QUASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE NOT BEING DEALT WITH AS THE SAME HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23RD OF MAY 2016 GS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR