Smt. Asha Gupta, Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Kanpur

ITA 670/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4403 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K SINGH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice; Difference of opinion; Valuation report; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. N .S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 670/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 SMT. ASHA GUPTA 4/276 - B, PARWATI BANGLA ROA D KANPUR V. ACIT - 3 KANPUR T AN /PAN : AAWPG5521G (APP ELL A NT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: SHRI SWARAN SINGH, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C. K. SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 09 10 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10 10 201 8 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI , A .M : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - I, KANPUR DATED 23/8/2017. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) THAT THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) - L, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN INVOKING SECTION 50C OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 AND THEREBY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,62,800 / - MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON A DIFFERENT BASIS. 2) THAT THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) - L, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A.O MERELY ON TH E BASIS OF ERRONEOUS REPORT OF THE D.V.O, RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ITA NO.670/LKW/2017 PAGE 2 OF 10 3) THAT THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) - L, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSM ENT U/S 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DVO'S VALUATION REPORT AND WITHOUT RECORDING ANY INDEPENDENT SATISFACTION. 4) THAT THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) - 1, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE LD. A.O TO THE VALUATION OFFICER U/S 55A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 5) THAT THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) - 1, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A.O, ERRONEOUSLY ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND ESTIMATION OF FAI R MARKET VALUE U/S 55A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 6) THAT THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) - 1, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE PIECEMEAL ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE LD. AO, THEREFORE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THEREFORE, LIA BLE TO BE QUASHED. 7) THAT THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) - 1, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS VOID AB - INITIO, ILLEGAL AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 8) THAT NO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR THE A.Y.200 8 - 09 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW, THEREFORE, IMPUGNED RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ILLEGAL, VOID AB - INITIO AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 9) THAT THERE IS NO AVERMENT IN THE REASONS RECORDED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TR ULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED REASONS RECORDED WERE ILLEGAL, VOID AB - INITIO AND THE CONSEQUENT ORDER IS ALSO BAD IN LAW AND BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 10) THAT THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS ) - L, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS ITA NO.670/LKW/2017 PAGE 3 OF 10 PASSED BY LD. AO WITHOUT DISPOSING THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED VIDE IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER APPEAL. 11) THA T THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) - I, KANPUR IS INSUPPORTABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IS ALSO CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 12) THAT ANY OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS MAY BE DEEMED FIT IN THE CASE & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE B E GRANTED. 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF MODIFIED GROUND NO.12 OF THE APPEAL FILED WITH FORM NO.36 AS WELL AS ACCEPTANCE O F ADDITIONAL GROUND, WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 3. THAT THE CIT(A) - 1, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE BASIS OF PURPORTED INCOME TAX INSPECTOR REPORT. 13. THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE BASIS OF ERRONEOUS FACTS HAVING NO LIVE LINK WITH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB - INITIO. 14. THAT THE LD. C.L.T. - L. KANPUR HAS MECHANICALLY GIVEN THE APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 151 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ILLEGAL AND VOID - AB - INITIO AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ITA NO.670/LKW/2017 PAGE 4 OF 10 RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MOHAN DAIRY VS. UNION OF INDIA (2007) 163 TAXMAN 274 (ALL.) 3 . THE LD. D.R. HAD NO OBJECTION TO ACCEPTING MODIFIED GROUND NO.12 OF THE APPEAL AS WELL AS ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THEY ARE ADMITTED FOR HEARING. 4 . I N GROUND NO.9 OF THE APPEAL , THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE IS NO AVERMENT IN THE REASONS RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS VOID AB - INITIO AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS PASSED ON 31/10/2010 UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148(2) OF THE ACT ON 27/3/2015 FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY RECORDING FOLLOWING REASONS: - THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED IN THE CASE OF SMT. ASHA GUPTA, 276 - B PA RWATI BAGLA ROAD, KANPUR (PAN AAWPG5521G) ON THE INCOME OF RS. 8, 23693/ - ON 31.12.2010 FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 1,56,510/ - . THIS LOSS HAS BEEN SHOWN ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY NO. B - 41, STUTEE BUILDING, KAROL BA GH, NEW DELHI. THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS HAVE BEEN ARRIVED AT BY SHOWING THE COST OF THE PROPERTY AS OF RS. 4,00,000/ - .THE INDEXED COST HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT FOR THE SAME PROPERTY AT RS. 5,56,510/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, FRESH INFORMATION WAS RE CEIVED THAT INDICATES THAT THE COST OF PROPERTY IS SUPPRESSED. AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON ITA NO.670/LKW/2017 PAGE 5 OF 10 RECORD THE COST OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS.16,62,800/ - AS AGAINST THE DECLARED VALUE OF RS. 4,00,000/ - . FURTHER INCOME TAX INSPECTOR OF THE OFFICE WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT A FIELD INQUIRY REGARDING THE SAID PROPERTY. AS PER REPORT FILED BY THE INCOME TAX INSPECTOR AFTER CONDUCTING FIELD ENQUIRY IS THAT THE COST OF THE PROPERTY SOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPRESSED. THUS THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 12 ,62,800/ - IN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD. AS PER RECORD THE VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN FOUND/SUBMITTED, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. BASED ON THE INFORMATION ON RECORD AND REPORT OF INCOME TAX INSPECTOR F ILED AFTER DOING FIELD ENQUIRY REGARDING THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROPERTY, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 12,62,800/ - HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AS THE CAS E WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND MORE THAN FOUR YEARS HAVE ELAPSED, HENCE, PREVIOUS SANCTION OF LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I, KANPUR IS REQUIRED TO E ACCORDED IN THIS CASE BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148. THE SAME IS BEING REQUESTED SEPARATELY. 6 . ON TH E ABOVE STATED FACTS, WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AFTER PASSING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 31.10.2010. PROVISO TO SECTION 147 STATES THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT IS MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE RECORDED REASONS SHOWS THAT THERE IS ITA NO.670/LKW/2017 PAGE 6 OF 10 NO WHISP ER IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR . THEREFORE, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148(2) ON 27/3/2015 IS BAD IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO SUCH NOTICE IS ALSO BAD IN LAW. 7 . OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MIRZA INTERNATIO NAL LTD., [ 2015] 229 TAXMAN 443 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEA R, ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT INITIATE RE - AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 8 . OUR VIEW ALSO FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. VS. DCIT, 334 ITR 420 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO REOPEN ASSESSMENT AFTER A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE REASONS RECORDED, THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE INGREDIENTS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 147 WERE CLEARLY NOT SATISFIED . 9 . THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TAO PUBLISHING (P) LTD. V. DY.CIT REPORTED IN (2015) 370 ITR 135 (BOM.), HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: - 10. AS STATED ABOVE THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER DO NOT DISCLOSE THAT THERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER TO PROVIDE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS. THAT BEING THE POSITION, THIS GROUND ITA NO.670/LKW/2017 PAGE 7 OF 10 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN UP AGAINST THE PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTIONS. ONCE THIS WAS NOT THE BASIS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE FOR REASSESSMENT, IT CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST THE PETITIONER THAT THE PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO MAKE A TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE. IT WILL HAVE TO BE HELD THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT FAIL TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS. THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR CARRYING OUT THE REASSESSMENT, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS, IS NOT FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 10 . THE HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUND CASTING (P) LTD. V. DY. CIT REPORTED IN 250 CTR 119 (BOM.) (HC), HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION IN THE REASONS WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON HIS PART TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE REOPENING BEYOND FOUR YEARS WAS NOT VALID. (A.Y. 2005 - 06). 11 . THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX AND ANOR. REPORTED IN [2009] 308 I TR 38 (DELHI) HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 26. VIEWED IN THIS LIGHT, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE SAID ACT, CARVES OUT AN EXCEPTION FROM THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147. IF A CASE WERE TO FALL WITHIN THE PROVISO, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS COVERED UNDER THE MA IN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE SAID ACT WOULD NOT BE MATERIAL. ONCE THE EXCEPTION CARVED OUT BY THE PROVISO CAME INTO PLAY, THE CASE WOULD FALL OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF SECTION 147. 27. EXAMINING THE PROVISO [SET OUT ABOVE], WE FIND THAT NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN UNDER SECTION 147 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED: ITA NO.670/LKW/2017 PAGE 8 OF 10 (A) AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR; AND (B) UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE: (I) TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTIO N 142 OR SECTION 148; OR (II) TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FA TS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. CONDITION (A) IS ADMITTEDLY SATISFIED INASMUCH AS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE SAID ACT . CONDITION (B) DEALS WITH A SPECIAL KIND OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE ESCAPEMENT MUST ARISE OUT OF TH FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTI ON 142 OR SECTION 148 THIS IS CLEARLY NOT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE THE PETITIONER DID FILE THE RETURN SINCE THERE WAS NO FAILURE TO MAKE THE RETURN, THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CANNO T BE ATTRIBUTED TO SUCH FAILURE. THIS LEAVES US WITH THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CH ARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH ARISES OUT OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSE S SEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IF IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT THE PETITIONER HAD DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATE RIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT, THEN NO ACTI N UNDER SECTION 147 COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AFTER THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD INDICATED ABOVE. SO, THE KEY QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER HAD MADE A FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS ? 29 . IN THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER, THERE IS NO WHISPER, WHAT TO SPEAK OF ANY ALLEGATION, THAT THE PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT AND THAT BECAUSE OF THIS FAILURE THERE HAS BEEN AN ESC APEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. MERELY HAVING A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REOPEN ASSESSMENTS BEYOND THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD INDICATED ABOVE. THE ITA NO.670/LKW/2017 PAGE 9 OF 10 ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT MUST ALSO BE OCCASIONED BY THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS, FULLY AND TRULY. THIS IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR OVERCOMING THE BAR SET UP BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147. IF THIS CONDITION IS NOT SATISFIED, THE BAR WOULD OPERATE AND NO ACTION UNDE R SECTION 147 COULD BE TAKEN. WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED ABOVE THAT THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY SUCH ALLEGATION. CONSEQUENTLY, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR REMOVING THE BAR AGAINST TAKING ACTION AFTER THE SAID FOUR YEA R PERIOD REMAINS UNFULFILLED. IN OUR RECENT DECISION IN WELINTERTRADE PRIVATE LTD (SUPRA) WE HAD AGREED WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DULI CHAND SINGHANIA (SUPRA) THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ALLEGATION IN THE REASON S RECORDED THAT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME HAD OCCURRED BY REASON OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 147 BEYOND THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD WOULD BE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION. REITERATING OUR VIEW - POINT, WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE DATED 29.03.2004 UNDER SECTION 148 BASED ON THE RECORDED REASONS AS SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS THE CONSEQUENT ORDER DATED 02.03.2005 ARE WITHOU T JURISDICTION AS NO ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 COULD BE TAKEN BEYOND THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED ABOVE. 12 . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING PROCEEDI NGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED PURSUANT IMPUGNED NOTICE, THEREFORE, WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND AS SUCH COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. HENCE, WE CANCEL THE RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH 143(3) OF TH E ACT DATED 29/3/2016 AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.670/LKW/2017 PAGE 10 OF 10 13 . AS WE HAVE CANCELLED THE RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29/3/2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH 143(3) OF THE ACT, OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME MERELY ACADE MIC IN NATURE AND HENCE WE REFRAIN FROM ADJUDICATING THE SAME. 14 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 / 10 / 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - [PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY] [ N.S. SAINI ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED: 10 TH OCTO BER , 201 8 JJ: 0910 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR