Rita Singh, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-70(1), New Delhi

ITA 5966/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9298 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S THUINGU LENY
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAANTANU JAIN DEEPANSHU JAIN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Salary income; Tangible material; Reason to believe
• Section: 80C; 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO.-5966/DEL/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) SMT. RITA SINGH RZ-71, 3 RD FLOOR, INDIRA PARK, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI- 110057 PAN : VS ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI ASSESSEE BY SHRI SHAANTANU JAIN, DEEPANSHU JAIN, ADV. REVENUE BY SHRI P.S.THUINGULENY, SR. DR ORDER PER N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-32, NEW DELHI DATED 20.04.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE ASSESSE E RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPH OLDING THE ACTION OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPUTIN G THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.4,12,806/- U/S 147/144 OF THE ACT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPH OLDING THE ACTION OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN FRAMING THE DATE OF HEARING 13.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.12.2018 2 ITA N O. 5966/DEL/2018 IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147/ 144 OF THE ACT A ND THAT TOO WITHOUT ASSUMING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW A ND WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS OF SECTION 147 TO 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2.1. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ORD ER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN FRAMING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147/144 O F THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2.2 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERIN G THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FOU ND BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN RELATION TO THE REASONS RECORDED AS NO ADDITION/ DISALLOWANCE IS MADE IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER BASED UPON THE REASONS RECORDED. 2.3 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED GROSSLY AND ACTED IN DEFIANCE OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN TH E CASE OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES VS. CIT; 336 ITR 136 (DELHI ) AND HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. SH. RAM SINGH; 306 ITR 343 (RAJASTHAN) WHEREBY THE ISSUE AS RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2.2 HEREIN IS SQUAREL Y COVERED. 2.4 THAT REASONS RECORDED ARE BASED UPON PRESUMPTI ON AND GUESS WORK AND THESE ARE NOT MORE THAN REASON T O SUSPECT AND THUS ARE NOT VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW A S NO BELIEF CAN BE FORMED ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS RECORDED. 2.5 THAT THE LD. AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY REASON BY USING HIS INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND TO SHOW THAT HE HAS A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED 3 ITA N O. 5966/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT AND AS SUCH THE SAME ARE NOT VALID IN TH E EYES OF LAW. 2.6 THAT IMPUGNED ORDER UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING AN ORDER U/S 147/ 144 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AS NO NEW FRESH/TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAS COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LD. A.O. 2.7 THAT THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW FOR THE REASON THAT THE SANCTION GRANTED U/S 151 OF THE ACT IS NOT VALID IN THE EYES OF THE LAW AND THE SAME IS MECHANICAL AND HAS BEEN DONE WITHOUT INDEPENDENT REASONING AND APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE SANCTIONIN G AUTHORITY. 3. THAT HAVING REGARDS TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN FRAMING IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHO UT ASSUMING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW AND WITHOUT SERVIN G MANDATORY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CTT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LEARNED AO IN MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 77,973/- UNDER SEC TION 80C OF THE ACT. 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LEARNED AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,25,000/- THAT ARE DEPOSITED IN TH E BANK BY TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOU RCES EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WAS CAPABLE OF VERIFICATION. 6. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS 4 ITA N O. 5966/DEL/2018 IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LEARNED AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 8,967/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCO ME IN THE BANK. 7. THAT THE LERNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPH OLDING THE LEVY OF INTEREST WHICH ARE NOT LEVIABLE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NOS. 2. 2 AND 2.3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER OTHER HEADS OF INCOME AND EXPEND ITURE WHEN NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN RELATION TO THE REASONS RECORDED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148(2) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD PROPERTY AGRICULTURE LAND OF 4 BIGHAS AND 14 BISWAS IN AYA N AGAR, THE H.K.MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI OF WHICH HE WAS 1/8 SHARE H OLDER FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RS. 53,00,000/- ON 22.03.2011. T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2011-12 ALTHOUGH HER INCOME EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHI CH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THEREFORE HE HAD REASONS T O BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 4. IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 NO ADDI TION WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED INCOME : 5 ITA N O. 5966/DEL/2018 1)INCOME FROM SALARY : RS. 2,78,839/- 2) INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES : RS. 1,25,00 0/- 3) IINCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES : RS. 8 ,967/- TOTAL INCOME : RS. 4,12,806/- 5. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS THAT THE REASON OF SALE OF PROPERTY FOR WHICH ACTION WAS TAKEN U/S 148 OF THE ACT DID NOT S URVIVE AS NO ADDITION THEREOF WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, HIS JURISDICTION TO MAKE ASSESSMENT CAME TO END AND HEN CE HE COULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY ADDITION UNDER OTHER HEADS OF INC OME AND FOR THIS HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SH. RAM SINGH (2008) 306 ITR 343 (RAJ.), ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (BOM) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VS. CIT. [2011] 336 ITR 136 (DELH I). 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. BEFORE ME THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSE SSEE SHRI SHANTANU JAIN AND SHRI DEEPANSHU JAIN, ADV. REITERA TED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND SUBMITTED THAT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES (SUP RA) THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE CANCELLED. 6 ITA N O. 5966/DEL/2018 8. ON THE OTHER HAND THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE S HRI P.S.THUINGULENY, SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 9. I FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY REC ORDING REASONS THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED A SSESSMENT ON SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBS ERVED FROM THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/ S 147 R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT ON 26/03/2015 NO ADDITION WAS MADE T O THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE L AND BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD SALARY, INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOU RCES AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH WERE NOT THE GROUN DS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER : HELD, THAT SECTION 148 WAS SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 147. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 148 MANDATES REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUB-SECTION (1) MANDATES SERVICE OF NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER PROCEEDS TO ASSESS, REASSESS OR RECOMPUTE ESCAPED INCOME. SECTION 147 MANDATES RECORDING OF REASONS TO BELIEVE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TH E INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AL L THESE CONDITIONS WERE REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED TO A SSESS OR REASSESS THE ESCAPED INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. UNDER EXPLANATION 3 IF DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SOME ITEMS HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THOSE ITEMS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE REASONS TO BELIEVE AS RECORDED FOR INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE NOTICE, HE WO ULD BE COMPETENT TO MAKE ASSESSMENT OF THOSE ITEMS. FOR EVERY NEW ISSUE COMING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF ESCAPED INCOME, AND WHICH HE INTEND S TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, HE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ISSUE A FRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 . THE ASSESSING OFFI CER 7 ITA N O. 5966/DEL/2018 WAS SATISFIED WITH THE JUSTIFICATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE ITEMS OF CLUB FEES, GIFTS AN D PRESENTS AND PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT, BUT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE FOUND THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS 80HH AND 80-I AS CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE TO BE NOT ADMISSIBLE. HE CONSEQUENTLY PROCEEDED TO MAKE DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTIONS 80HH AN D 80-I AND ACCORDINGLY REDUCED THE CLAIM ON THESE ACCOUNTS. THE VERY BASIS OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDIN GS FOR WHICH REASONS TO BELIEVE WERE RECORDED WAS INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS OF CLUB FEE S, GIFTS AND PRESENTS, ETC., BUT WHILE THESE ITEMS WER E NOT DISTURBED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO REDUC E THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS 80HH AND 80-I WHICH WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT I N HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD THE JURISDIC TION TO REASSESS ISSUES OTHER THAN THE ISSUES IN RESPECT OF WHICH PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BUT HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED WHEN THE REASONS FOR THE INITIATION OF TH OSE PROCEEDINGS CEASED TO SURVIVE. 10. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER : EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT OF 20 09, WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1989. THE EFFECT OF THE EXPLANATION IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 CONTAINING THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN A REFEREN CE TO A PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH INCOM E HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSES S OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH H AS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, WHEN SUCH ISSUE COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING S. PARLIAMENT HAVING USED THE WORDS ASSESS OR REASSES S SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THE WORDS AND ALSO CANNOT BE READ AS BEING IN THE ALTERNATIVE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION WOULD BE TO RE GARD THOSE WORDS AS BEING CONJUNCTIVE AND CUMULATIVE. IT IS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE THAT PARLIAMENT HAS NOT USED THE WORD OR. THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT REST CONTENT BY MEREL Y USING THE WORD AND. THE WORDS AND AS WELL AS ALSO H AVE BEEN USED TOGETHER AND IN CONJUNCTION. EVI-DENTLY, WHAT PARLIAMENT INTENDS BY USE OF THE WORDS AND ALSO I S THAT 8 ITA N O. 5966/DEL/2018 THE ASSESSING OFFICER, UPON THE FORMATION OF A REAS ON TO BELIEVE UNDER SECTION 147 AND THE ISSUANCE OF A NOT ICE UNDER SECTION 148(2) MUST ASSESS OR REASSESS : (I)S UCH INCOME ; AND ALSO (II) ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING S UNDER THE SECTION. EXPLANATION 3 DOES NOT AND CANNOT OVERRIDE THE NECESSITY OF FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF SECTION 147 . AN EXPLANATION TO A STATUTORY PROVISION IS INTENDED TO EXPLAIN ITS CO NTENTS AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO OVERRIDE IT OR RENDER TH E SUBSTANCE AND CORE NUGATORY. SECTION 147 HAS THIS E FFECT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ASSESS OR REASSES S THE INCOME (SUCH INCOME) WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE FORMATION OF BELIEF AND IF HE DOES SO, HE CAN ALSO ASSESS OR REASSESS ANY OTHER I NCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVE R, IF AFTER ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 , HE ACCEP TS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLDS THAT THE INCOM E WHICH HE HAS INITIALLY FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE H AD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HAS AS A MATTER OF FACT NOT ESC APED ASSESSMENT, IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM INDEPENDENTLY TO ASSESS SOME OTHER INCOME. IF HE INTENDS TO DO SO, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WOULD BE NECESSARY IN THE EVENT OF CHAL LENGE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EFFECT OF SECTION 147 AS IT NO W STANDS AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF 2009 CAN THEREFORE, B E SUMMARISED AS FOLLOWS : (I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER M UST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE T O TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR ; (I I) UPON THE FORMATION OF THAT BELIEF AND BEFORE HE PRO CEEDS TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATIO N, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 148 ; (III) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOM E, WHICH HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE, HAS ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME, CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECTION ; AND (IV) THOUGH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148(2) DOES NOT INCLUDE A PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HE MAY NONE THE LESS , ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISS UE WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING S UNDER THE SECTION. 9 ITA N O. 5966/DEL/2018 11. THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OF CIT VS. SH. RAM SINGH (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER : PURSUANT TO SEARCH OPERATIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ISSUED A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 148 O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD PURCHASED A PLOT OF LAND FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURC ES OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD PURCHASE D THE LAND FROM HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS LYI NG DEPOSITED WITH A COMPANY AND FILED THE RETURN ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE SO URCE OF THE DEPOSITS. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE PROCEED INGS FOR REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON NON-EXI STING FACTS. ON APPEAL : HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS FOR REASS ESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON NON-EXISTING FACTS, BECA USE ULTIMATELY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN TH E INCOME, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER BELIEVED TO HAV E ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTI FIED IN INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. BUT ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REACHED THE CONCLUSI ON THAT THE INCOME WHICH HE BELIEVED TO HAVE ESCAPED INVESTMENT HAD BEEN EXPLAINED, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DID NOT CONTINUE TO POSSESS JURISDICTION TO TAX ANY OTH ER INCOME, WHICH CAME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN TH E COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. 12. THUS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS I NCLUDING THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MAKES ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WH ICH REASONS WERE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-OPENI NG OF THE ASSESSMENT, THEN HE HAS JURISDICTION TO MAKE ASSESS MENT OF OTHER INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. WHERE TH E ASSESING OFFICER DOES NOT MAKE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON 10 ITA NO. 5966/DEL/2018 THE GROUND ON WHICH REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS MAD E, HE CEASES TO HAVE JURISDICTION FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT U /S 147 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY HIM UN DER OTHER HEADS OF INCOME WHICH HE COMES ACROSS FOR ESCAPEMEN T OF INCOME. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO AS NO ADDITION WAS MADE FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON THE GROUND OF SALE OF AGRIC ULTURE LAND BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CEASED AND HE COULD NOT HAVE MADE ASSESSMEN T OF INCOME UNDER OTHER HEADS. THUS, THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER DA TED 26.03.2015 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 IS BAD IN LAW AND ACCORDINGLY WE CANCEL THE SAME. THUS , THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 13. AS I HAVE CANCELLED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U /S 147 OF THE ACT, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND HENCE N OT ADJUDICATED UPON. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18 TH DECEMBER, 2018 AT NEW DELHI. SD/- (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: 18.12.2018 *BR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 11 ITA NO. 5966/DEL/2018 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 18.12.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 18.12.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER .12.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 12.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .12.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS .12.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER