SHAMBHU DAYAL SARRAF, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 558/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5498 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 54F; 147; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK L NL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, A M VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 558/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL SARRAF C/O S.D. SARRAF & CO. 1 ST FLOOR SHOP NO. 216-217, KISHANPOLE BAZAAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD- 7(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AFPPS 1708 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 27/06/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02/07/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 22.03.2013 OF CIT (A), JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2003-04. EARLIER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED BY THE SMC B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 11.02.2016 HOWEVER, SUBSE QUENTLY THE SAID ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WAS RECALLED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN MA. NO. 97/JP/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.04.2018 O N THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN PARAS 4 AND 5 AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 558/JP/2013 SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL SARRAF VS. ITO 2 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TH AT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION ON 30.06.2003. THE AO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT BY RECORDI NG THE REASONS AS UNDER:- IT HAS COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE UNDERSIGNED THAT THE ASSESSEE SH. SHAMBHU DAYAL SARAF S/O SH. MADAN LAL SARAF C/O M/S SARAF & CO. C.A. 1 ST FLOOR SHOP NO. 216-217 KISHANPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR HAS MADE TRANSACTIONS WORTH RS. 5,60,845/- WITH MKM FINSEC. THROUGH TWO DD OF RS. 2,50,000/-, DATED 12.09.2002 AND RS. 3,10,845/- DATED 18.09.2002. IN THE RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 THE SAID SUM HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN. I HAVE, THEREFORE, REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF RS. 5,60,845/- HAS ESCAPED A SSESSMENT. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED WHEN THE AO CAME TO KNOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVE TRANSACTION WITH MKM FINANCE SECURITIES AND RECEIVED A TOTAL SUM OF RS. 5,60,845/- THROUGH TWO DDS OF RS. 2,50,000/-DATED 12.092002 AND RS. 3,10,845/- DA TED 18.09.2002. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE OBJECTIONS AGAI NST THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGED INCOME OF RS. 5,60,845/- WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS PART OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISIN G FROM SALE OF SHARES AND THEREFORE, THE AO HAVING NO REASONS TO B ELIEVE THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT . WE FIND THAT THIS IS PURELY A FACTUAL ASPECT PERTAINS TO TH E DISCLOSER OF THE INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHIC H WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO AS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESS EE WHILE RECORDING THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSME NT. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS MORE A FACTUAL IN NATURE T HEN, THE LEGAL AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE CORRECT FACTS WHILE FORMING THE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF RS. 5, 60,845/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE REASONS THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO. 558/JP/2013 SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL SARRAF VS. ITO 3 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INC OME AS PART OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES. WE NO TE THAT THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS R EJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING HOWEVER, THIS PARTICULAR FACT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THIS AMOUNT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OR NOT HAS ESCA PED CONSIDERATION BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE IS SUE. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND CONSEQUENTLY WE RE CALL THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR FRESH HEARING AN D ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FRESH HEARING AND ADJUDICATION IN REGU LAR COURSE. THE PARTIES TO BE INFORMED ABOUT THE NEXT DATE OF HEARI NG. 2. THUS, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAIN LISTE D FOR HEARING AND ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 1 T O 7 AS UNDER:- GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AMONGST OTHERS, ARE SUBMITTED A S UNDER:- 1 THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APP EALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING. THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF I.T.ACT BY THE I.T.O. WARD 7(1), JAIPUR ON THE BASI S OF GENERAL INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DIRECTOR OF INVES TIGATION, NEW DELHI WITHOUT HAVING INCRIMINATING AND CORROBOR ATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 3 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APP EALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF I.T. ACT AGAINST THE PRIMARY INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE ITA NO. 558/JP/2013 SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL SARRAF VS. ITO 4 ON RECORD WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT VOLUNTARILY REGARDING CAPITAL GAIN. 4 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APP EALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCREMENTING LETTER OF DIRECTOR OF INVESTI GATION DELHI WITHOUT EXAMINATION ITS BASIC RECORD NOR CROS S EXAMINE THE PERSON WITH THE EVIDENCE OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ON RECORD. 5 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE AL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARN ED ITO WHICH WAS PASSED ON BASIS OF EXTRANEOUS CONCLUSION OF THE OTHER AUTHORITIES IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS DRAWN AS PER STATEMENT AND DOCUMENTS GATHERED FROM THIRD PERSON WITHOUT PROVIDING APPORUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM. 6 THAT THE LEARNED CIT ( APPEAL) ERRED IN INTERPRET ING SEC. 147 OF I.T. ACT IN MANNER SO THAT APPELLANTS CASE COVERED UNDER DEEMING PROVISION OF SEC. 147 OF I.T.ACT 7. THAT THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LEARNED I.T.O. WITHOUT CONSIDERIN G THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION REGARDING JURISDICTION U/ S 147 OF I.T. ACT SUCH THERE IS NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AS PER RECORD. 3. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON ON 30.06.2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,19,1220/-. THIS RET URN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1)(A) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO REOP ENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT DATED 19.03.2010 TO ITA NO. 558/JP/2013 SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL SARRAF VS. ITO 5 ASSESS THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF TWO DDS OF RS. 2,50 ,000/- AND RS. 3,10,845 TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,60,845/- AS RECEI VED FROM M/S MKM FINSEC (P.) LTD. AS INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE LD. AR HAS REFERRED TO THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR REOP ENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS REOPENED T HE ASSESSMENT ONLY TO ASSESS THE TRANSACTION OF RS. 5,60,845/- AS RECEIVED THROUGH TWO DDS STATED ABOVE WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THESE AMOUNTS IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAIN FROM SALE OF SHARES AND ALSO CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE IT ACT. THE AR HAS REFERRED TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AT PAGE 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 9,64,248/- AND TOTAL RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 10,10,845/- FROM SALE OF EQUITY SHARES OF M/S SUMA FINANCE & IN VESTMENT. THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 5,60,845/- IS PART OF THE TOTAL CONSI DERATION OF RS. 10,10,845/- AND THEREFORE, THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO ARE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS ON RECORD. THE LD. AR HAS REFERRED TO THE DETAILS OF THESE TWO DDS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE BROKER HAS PAID THE ASSESSEE THESE TWO AMOUNTS AFTER DEDUCTION OF DD COMMISSION AND THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD BORNE THE DD CHARGES AGAINST THESE TWO AMOUNTS. THUS, THE LD. AR HAS CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE TRANSACTION WAS ALREADY DISCLOSED IN THE ITA NO. 558/JP/2013 SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL SARRAF VS. ITO 6 RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN, REOPEN ING ON THE REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THIS AMOUNT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS NOT VALID AS THE AO HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WAS ACTUALLY DISCLOSED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CA SE OF CIT VS. SHRI RAM SINGH 306 ITR 343 . 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT WHEN HE RECEIVE D INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRANSACTION WORTH RS. 5,60,845/- WITH M/S MKM FINSEC (P.) LTD. THROUGH TWO DDS AS MENTIONED BY THE AO IN THE REASONS RECORDED AND THESE TRANSACTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN SEPARATELY DEC LARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OR COMPUTATION OF INCOME ANNEXED RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, AT THE TIME OF REOPENI NG PRIMA FACIE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING REASONS BASED ON THE I NFORMATION THAT THE INCOME OF RS. 5,60,845/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AS THE SAID AMOUNT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH ON FURTHER SCRUTINY THE SAID AMOUNT MAY BE F OUND AS PART OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT A ND HENCE, THE NET ITA NO. 558/JP/2013 SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL SARRAF VS. ITO 7 DECLARED OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS NIL. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TR IBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF THIS AMOUNT BY TREAT ING THE SAME AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHILE PASSING THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2016. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE FILE D HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.06.2003. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS F ILED IN PHYSICAL FORM ALONGWITH THE STATEMENT OF INCOME. AS PER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME FROM LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 9,64,248/- AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 10,10,845/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THESE FACTS BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HOWEVER, THE AO MADE AN AD DITION OF THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 10,08,825/- BY TRE ATING THE SAME AS BOGUS TRANSACTIONS BEING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT PR OPOSED TO RE- ASSESS THE INCOME OF RS. 5,60,845/- ON ACCOUNT OF T WO DDS RECEIVED BY US FROM M/S MKM FINSEC (P.) LTD. THUS, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE REASONS ITA NO. 558/JP/2013 SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL SARRAF VS. ITO 8 RECORDED BY THE AO FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT THAT THERE WAS NO REASON OF BOGUS ENTRIES OR ACCOMMODATION TRANSACTIO NS TO FORM THE BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAP ED ASSESSMENT. THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING AND SUFFICIENCY OF REASONS HA S TO BE TESTED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO AND NOT HING MORE CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN DETE CTED DURING THE COURSE OF ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE AO IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ONCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EX PLAINED THE FACT WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS PART OF THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 5,60,845/- IS VERY MUCH PART OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SALE CONSIDERATION AS DECLARED BY THE ASSE SSEE THEN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR REOPENING OF THE AS SESSMENT WOULD NOT SURVIVE AND THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE DROPPED THE PROCEE DINGS OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI RAM SINGH (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED IN P ARAS 27 TO 30 AS UNDER:- 27. IT IS ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION OF ST ATUTES, THAT THE PARLIAMENT IS PRESUMED TO BE NOT EXTRAVAGANT, I N USING THE WORDS, AND THEREFORE, EVERY WORD USED IN THE SECTIO N, IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN ITS DUE MEANING. ITA NO. 558/JP/2013 SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL SARRAF VS. ITO 9 28. IF CONSIDERED ON THAT PRINCIPLE, LEAVING APART FOR THE MOMENT, THE ASPECT OF INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD 'AND' AS ' OR', THE EXISTENCE OF THE WORD 'ALSO' IS OF A GREAT SIGNIFIC ANCE, BEING OF CONJUNCTIVE NATURE, AND LEAVES NO MANNER OF DOUBT I N OUR OPINION, THAT IT IS ONLY WHEN, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 147 THE AO, ASSESSES OR REASSESSES ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX , WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, WITH RE SPECT TO WHICH HE HAD 'REASON TO BELIEVE' TO BE SO, THEN ONL Y, IN ADDITION, HE CAN ALSO PUT TO TAX, THE OTHER INCOME, CHARGEABL E TO TAX, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, AND WHICH HAS COME TO HIS N OTICE SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 147. 29. TO CLARIFY IT FURTHER, OR TO PUT IT IN OTHER WORDS, IN OUR OPINION, IF IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 147, THE A O WERE TO COME TO CONCLUSION, THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO T AX, WHICH, ACCORDING TO HIS 'REASON TO BELIEVE', HAD ESCAPED A SSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, DID NOT ESCAPE ASSESSMENT, THE N, THE MERE FACT, THAT THE AO ENTERTAINED A REASON TO BELIEVE, ALBEIT EVEN A GENUINE REASON TO BELIEVE, WOULD NOT CONTINUE TO VE ST HIM WITH THE JURISDICTION, TO SUBJECT TO TAX, ANY OTHER INCO ME, CHARGEABLE TO TAX, WHICH THE AO MAY FIND TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSES SMENT, AND WHICH MAY COME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE C OURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 147. 30. IT IS A DIFFERENT STORY THAT FOR SUCH OTHER INCOME, THE AO MAY HAVE RECOURSE TO SUCH OTHER REMEDIES, AS MAY BE AVA ILABLE TO HIM UNDER LAW, BUT THEN, ONCE IT IS FOUND, THAT THE INC OME, REGARDING WHICH HE HAD 'REASON TO BELIEVE' TO HAVE ESCAPED AS SESSMENT, IS NOT FOUND TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THE AO IS REQ UIRED TO WITHHOLD HIS HANDS, AT THAT ONLY. THUS, THE SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS OF THE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN PARA 29 OF THE DECISION IN CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI RAM SING H (SUPRA) ARE THAT IN CASE DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT, THE AO CAME TO ITA NO. 558/JP/2013 SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL SARRAF VS. ITO 10 CONCLUSION THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH ACCORDING TO THE REASONS TO BELIEVE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, DID NOT ESCAPE ASSESSMENT, THEN, THE MERE FACT, THA T THE AO ENTERTAINED A REASON TO BELIEVE THOUGH A GENUINE RE ASONS TO BELIEVE WOULD NOT CONTINUE TO VEST HIM WITH THE JURISDICTIO N TO TAX ANY OTHER INCOME. THUS IN THE CASE ONCE THE INCOME WHICH WAS PROPOSED TO ASSESS AS PER REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOUND DECL ARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THEN, THE AO CEASED TO HAVE JURISDICTION TO PROCEED WITH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING TO ASSESS ANY OTHER INCOME TO TAX. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND B Y FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CA SE OF THE CIT VS. SHRI RAM SINGH (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE REASSESSMENT IS IN VALID AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE REOPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND CONSEQUENTIAL REASSESSMENT. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/07/2018. SD/- SD/- HKKXPAN FOT; IKY JKO (BHAGCHAND) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 02/07/2018. ITA NO. 558/JP/2013 SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL SARRAF VS. ITO 11 * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL SARRAF, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT - ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 558/JP/2013} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR