Dr. Udayan Narayan, V. ACIT,

ITA 55/PAT/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1189 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K PAUL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K NARAYAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Invalid notice; Salary income; Bonafide belief; Reason to believe
• Section: 133A; 147; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 55/PAT/2016. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH, PATNA. BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (S.M.C.) I.T.A. NO. 55/PAT/2016. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 - 05.. DR. UDAYAN NARAYAN, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, PATNA. VS. CIRCLE - 1, PATNA. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. NARAYAN. . RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. PAUL. DATE OF HEARING : 05 - 08 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 ND AUGUST, 2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - I, PATNA DATED 05 - 02 - 2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. FOR THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE UNSIGNED NOTICE U/S 148 BY THE ACIT AS A VALID NOTICE. 2. FOR THAT NO REASON TO BELIEVE WAS RECORDED BY THE ACIT BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 YET THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY HELD THE PROCEEDIN G TO BE VALID. 3. FOR THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY HELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/147 TO BE VALID WHEN IT WAS PASSED WITHOUT DISPOSING THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. FOR THAT NO VALID REASON TO BELIEVE EXISTED ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148. 5. FOR THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATION OF GROSS RECEIPTS AT RS.11,42,100/ - AND NET PROFIT AT RS.8,41,632/ - BY THE ACIT. 6. FOR THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN THE WRONG JURISDICTION BE TREATED AS NON EST. 2 ITA NO. 55/PAT/2016. 7. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OTHERWISE BAD IN LAW AND FACT OF THE CASE AND FIT TO BE A NULLED, SET ASIDE OR MODIFIED. 2. IN THIS CASE THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DOCTOR FROM PROFESSION. H E DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY, PROFESSION AND FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 ON 04 - 02 - 2005 IN RANGE - 6, PATNA SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AS RS.4,46,395/ - . A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN CLINIC PREMISES OF THE ASSESSE E ON 13 - 02 - 2004 BY THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, PATNA HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. THE AO NOTED THAT H AVING BEING WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE JURISDICTION OF HIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS WILLINGLY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2004 - 05 ON 04 - 02 - 2005 IN THE WRONG JURISDICTION OF RANGE - 6, PATNA WHICH IS NOT FOR PROFESSIONALS, TO SAVE HIS CASE FROM SELECTION OF SCRUTINY. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE QUOTED INVALID PAN I.E. ABAPN7546C IN THIS ATTEMPT . WHEREAS TH E CORRECT PAN OF THE ASSESSEE IS ABAPN7545C. THE AO OBSERVED THAT R ETURN OF INCOME FILED IN THE WRONG JURISDICTION DELIBERATELY WAS TREATED AS A NON - EST RETURN. THEREFORE, PROCEEDING U/S 147 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I. T. ACT ON 20 - 06 - 2006. 3. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FILING A RETURN OF INCOME IN RANGE - 6, PATNA EARLIER AND HE WAS NOT HAVING PROFESSIONAL INCOME AND HAS STARTED PRIVATE PRACTICE FOR THE FIRST TIME FROM JULY, 2003. THEREFORE, HE WAS IN A BONAFIDE BELIEF T HAT HIS NATURAL JURISDICTION WAS RANGE - 6. FURTHER, AS REGARDS PAN, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ONLY ONE DIGIT 6 HAS WRONGLY BEEN PRE - MENTIONED AS 5 AND IT WAS A BONAFIDE ERROR. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED. 4. THE AO FURT HER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE SURVEY CONDUCTED ON 13 - 02 - 2004 REGISTER MARKED AS RP - I AND RP - II WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED . O N THE BASIS OF THE IMPOU NDED MATERIAL I.E. RP - I & RP - II, T HE NUMBER OF PATIENTS WAS ESTIMATED FOR THE VARIOUS MONTHS AS FOLLOWS : 3 ITA NO. 55/PAT/2016. NOVE MBER 2003 (FROM 15 - 11 - 2003 TO 30 - 11 - 2003) 519 DECEMBER 2003 814 JANUARY, 2004 595 FEBRUARY, 2004 (UPTO 13.02.2004) 530 TOTAL NUMBER OF PATIENTS 2,538 THE AO FURTHER ESTIMATED THAT IF THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS CALCULATED AS 2538 FOR 3 MONTHS, IF EXTRAPOLATED, THEM IT COMES AT 2538 X 3 = 7614 PATIENTS. AS ASSESSE E USED TO CHARGE RS.150.00 PER PATIENTS, HENCE THE TOTAL RECEIPT CALCULATED FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003 - 04 IS 7614 X 150.00 = RS.11,42,100.00. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.3,27,468/ - IN HIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, BILLS AND VOUCHERS, PAYMENT DETAILS AND NECESSARY EVIDENCES WERE NOT PROVIDED. HOWEVER , THE AO HE LD THAT KEEPING THE NATURE OF PROFESSION AND OTHER FACTS IN MIND, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED, EXCEPT THE SECURITY EXPENSES. BECAUSE SECURITY EXPENSES IS NOT RELATED TO THE PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE . THAT I T IS OF PERSONAL NATURE . HENC E AO HELD THAT THE EXPENSES OF RS.3,00,468.00 IS ALLOWED WHICH IS EXCLUDING THE SECURITY EXPENSES. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE SB A/C 201424, ALLAHABAD BANK, IGIMS BRANCH, PATNA, IT IS SEEN THAT APART FROM THE SALARY INCOME , T HE ASSESS EE HAS CREDITED RS. 2,87,016.00 IN THIS ACCOUNT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THESE CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, HE DID NOT FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. THE AO HELD THAT A S THE ASSESSEE DO ES NOT MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT (AS RECORDED HIS STATEMENT ON OATH), THEREFORE, THE CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS.2,87,016.00 IS TAKEN AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). AT THE THRESHOLD, BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE 4 ITA NO. 55/PAT/2016. HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE AO OR FOR THAT MATTER BY ANY PERSON OR IT DOES NOT BEAR THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT, HENCE NOTICE SO ISSUED IS AN INVALID N OTICE AND ANY PROCEEDING STARTED IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF IS VOID AB INITIO. THAT T HIS EFFECT IN THE INVALID NOTICE IS NOT CURABLE BY PROVISION OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT AND THE PROCEEDING INITIATED BY THE AO IS ILLEGAL. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED TH AT, ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS OF THE CASE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE IN ITNS - 34 BEARING NO. 831 DATED 20/23.06.2006 HAS BEEN FOUND TO ISSUED BY OFFICE OF ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, PATNA. HOWEVER, THIS NOTICE DOES NOT BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF THE AO WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) REFERRED TO SECTION 292BB OF THE I.T. ACT AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER RAISED ANY OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF IRREGULARITY OF NOTICE BEING NOT SIGNED BY THE AO. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER OBSERVED AS UNDER : 3.6 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THAT CONDITION PRECEDENT TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT OF REASON TO BELIEVE WAS NOT THERE PRIOR TO ISSUE OF NOTICE AS EVIDENT FROM CERTIFIED COPY OF REASONS SO OBTAINED ATTACHED AS PER ANNEXURE - II OF THE PAP ER BOOK. IT HAS BEEN ASSAILED THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 20.06.2006 CERTIFIED COPY HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 31.07.2006. IN THIS REGARD COPY OF ORDER SHEET AS PER ANNEXURE HAS BEEN PERUSED WHICH IS REFLECTING REASONS RECORDED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE ORDE R SHEET HAS OPENING DATE OF 20.06.2006 BUT THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE SIGNED ON 13.07.2006. THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THESE TWO DATES, BUT IN TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF RULE OF EJUSDE M GENERIS OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUS W HICH PROVIDED THE LATER HAS TO FOLLOW EARLIER AND ANY CONSTRUCTION OF SITUATION HAS TO FLOW FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE ORDER SHEET DATE IS 20.06.2006 IT IS BEING CONSTRUED THAT IT IS THE DATE OF RECORDING OF REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTI CE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 3.7 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THAT A.O. HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT DISPOSING THE OBJECTIONS FILED TO THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. ON CONSIDERATION OF SEQUENCE OF FACTS IN THIS CASE, IT IS FOUND THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 20.06.2006 A COMPLIANCE TO THE SAID NOTICE WAS MADE ON 07.07.2007 I.E. 5 ITA NO. 55/PAT/2016. AFTER LAPS OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR. IN THE MEANWHILE, IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A LETTER DATED NIL RECEIVED IN THE OFFI CE OF THE A.O. ON 22.08.2006 RAISING CERTAIN OBJECTIONS WITH REGARD TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. ON PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THERE IS DETAILED MENTION OF ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN RESPECT OF REASONS TO BELIEVE SAID TO BE HELD WITH THE AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. THOUGH THERE IS NO SEPARATE ORDER ON RECORD IN THIS REGARD BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPLIANCE TO THE DIRECTION CONTAINED IN THE ORDER OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFT (INDIA) LTD. REPORTED IN 259 ITR 19, THIS WILL CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE TO THE SAID DIRECTION. FURTHER THE HONBLE COURT IN THE CASE OF K. ADI NARAYANA MURTI REPORTED IN 65 ITR 607 HAS HELD THAT EVEN IF FOR SOME REASON THE A.O. COULD NOT HAVE VALIDLY ACTED ON THE RETURN ON ACCOUN T OF INVALID OR NON EST, SUCH RETURN CAN BE IGNORED AND A.O. CAN PROCEED TO SERVE NOTICE U/S 148. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON ACCOUNT OF RETURN NOT BEING IN ITS JURISDICTION FOR WANT OF VALID PAN, THE A.O. CAN BE SET TO HAVE SUFFICIENT REASON TO ISSUE NOTICE AN D FOR REASONS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS BEING UPHELD. 7. ON MERITS LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME, HOWEVER, DIRECTED FOR DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNE XPLAINED CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 8. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 9. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL DEFECT IN THIS CASE REGARDING REOPENING INASMUCH NOTICE U/S 148 HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED AND IT IS AN UNSIGNED DOCUMENT. FURTHER MORE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET IN PAPER BOOK WHICH SHOWED THAT AFTER GIVING INITIAL DATE ON 20 - 06 - 2006 AND THEREAFTER RECORDING THE REA SONS, THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED BY THE AO ON 13 - 07 - 2006. HENCE LEARNED COUNSEL PLEADED THAT THE REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED AFTER THE ISSUE OF NOTICE SUPPOSEDLY AT 20 - 06 - 2006. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER PLEADED THAT RELIANCE BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB IN THIS REGARD IS TOTALLY MISPLACED. 10. PER CONTRA, LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6 ITA NO. 55/PAT/2016. 11. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. FIRST OF ALL THE ASSESSEES PLEA IS T HAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 20 - 06 - 2006 IS AN UNSIGNED DOCUMENT. THIS IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THIS IS A F A T AL ERROR AND CANNOT BE CURED BY PLACING RELIANCE UPON SECTION 292BB OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THIS REGARD I MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB AS UNDER : 292BB. WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDING OR CO - OPERATED IN ANY INQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON HIM, HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE PRECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY UNDER THIS ACT THAT THE NOTICE WAS ( A ) NOT SERVED UPON HIM; OR ( B ) NOT SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME; OR ( C ) SERVED UPON HIM IN AN IMPROPER MANNER: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESS MENT.] THE READING OF THE ABOVE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE SAID SECTION PLACES AN E STOPPLE ON THE ASSESSEE IF HE HAS APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS FROM ARGUING THAT THE NOTICE WAS A) NOT SERVED UPON HIM OR B) NOT SERVED UPON HI M IN TIME OR C) SERVED UPON HIM IN IMPROPER MANNER. I FIND THAT THE ABOVE PROVISION NO WHERE COMES TO THE RESCUE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS CASE. IT IS A CASE FALLING UNDER NONE OF THE CLAUSES ABOVE BUT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE SAID DOCUMENT OF NOTICE IS AN UN SIGNED DOCUMENT . T HE ABOVE SECTION BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION INTEN DS TO CURE THE SAME. HENCE IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR AND UNSIGNED DOCUMENT BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. HENCE IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED AND THE INITIATION OF REOPENING PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THIS ACCOUNT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION I PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 7 ITA NO. 55/PAT/2016. I) B.K. GOOYEE VS. CIT 62 ITR 109 (CAL.) II) UMASHANKAR MISHRA VS. CIT 136 ITR 330 (M.P.) III) S.B. MUTHUMUNIA MUDALIAR VS. CIT 85 ITR 12 (MAD.). T HUS THE UNSIGNED NOTICE IS NOT A CURABLE IRREGULARITY BUT I S A NULLITY. 12. FURTHER MORE I NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT REASONS WERE RECORDED SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF THE SAID SO CALLED NOTICE ON 20 - 06 - 2006 HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A PPEALS) ON THE BASIS OF HIS OBSERVATION THAT AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REASONS SO OBTAINED AND ATTACHED AS PER ANNEXURE II OF THE PAPER BOOK L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER PROCEEDED TO OBSERVE THAT IT HAS BEEN ASSAILED THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 20.06.2006 CERTIFIED COPY HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 31.07.2006. IN THIS REGARD COPY OF ORDER SHEET AS PER ANNEXURE HAS BEEN PERUSED WHICH IS REFLECTING REASONS RECORDED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE ORDER SHEET HAS OPENING DATE OF 20.06.2 006 BUT THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE SIGNED ON 13.07.2006. THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THESE TWO DATES, BUT IN TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUS WHICH PROVIDED THE LATER HAS TO FOLL OW EARLIER AND ANY CONSTRUCTION OF SITUATION HAS TO FLOW FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE ORDER SHEET DATE IS 20.06.2006 IT IS BEING CONSTRUED THAT IT IS THE DATE OF RECORDING OF REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 13. I FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS PASSED HIS ORDER ON THE BASIS OF HIS INFERENCES FROM THE SAID COPY OF REASONS RECORDED AND SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT REFERRED TO OR EXAMINED THE ACTUAL FILE WHERE THE REASONS WERE RECORDED BY THE AO. SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS RELIED ON THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED I FIND THAT THE SAID COPY MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE REASONS WERE RECORDED ON 13 - 07 - 2006 WHICH MAKES I T A CLEAR CASE OF RECORDING OF REASONS AFTER THE ISSUE OF NOTICE. IT IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION AS TO HOW THE THEORY OF EJUSDEM GENERIS COMES TO THE RESCUE OF 8 ITA NO. 55/PAT/2016. THE REVENUE. LITERAL MEANING OF EJUSDEM GENERIS IS OF THE SAME KIND OR NATURE AS PER WHA RTON'S LAW LE XICON SIXTEENTH EDITION. THIS TERM IS CHIEFLY USED IN C ASES WHERE GENERAL WORDS HAVE A MEANING ATTRIBUTED TO THEM LESS COMPREHENSI VE THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BEAR, BY REASON OF PARTICULAR WORDS PRECEDING THEM. THE RECORDING OF REASON BY MENTIONING IT AS BEING RECORDED ON 20 - 06 - 2006 BUT SIGNING IT ON 13 - 07 - 2 006 CAN BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION BE TREATED AS REASON RECORDED ON 20 - 06 - 2006 BY PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS AND FOR THAT MATTER ON ANY OTHER RULE. 1 4 . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION O N ACCOUNT OF INVALID REOPENING SUCCEEDS IN THIS CASE INASMUCH AS THE NOTICE OF REOPENING IS AN UNSIGNED DOCUMENT AND THE REASONS RECORDED ARE SUBSEQUENT TO THE SO CALLED DATE OF NOTICE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE IS BEREFT OF VALID JURISDICTION . HENCE I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND QUASH THE ORDER IN THIS REGARD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON VALIDITY OF REOPENING, THE ADJUDICATION ON MERITS OF THE CASE IS ONLY OF ACADEMIC INTEREST. HENCE I DO NOT ENGAGE INTO THE SAME. 1 5 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DATED: 22 ND AUGUST, 2016. 9 ITA NO. 55/PAT/2016. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. DR. UDAYAN NARAYAN, AA COMPLEX, EAST BOARING CANAL ROAD, PATNA. 2. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, PATNA. 3. C.I.T. - , PATNA. 4. CIT(APPEALS), - I, PATNA. 5. D.R., ITAT, PATNA. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH, PATNA . WAKODE.