Uttarakhand Van Vikas Nigam, Dehradun V. ACIT, Dehradun

ITA 7075/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 707520114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAHID NASIR ALI
• Assessee Lawyers: P C AGARWAL S
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH H HH H : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI KUL BHARAT KUL BHARAT KUL BHARAT KUL BHARAT, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO S.7074/DEL/2014, 7075/DEL/2014 & 7076/DEL/2014 S.7074/DEL/2014, 7075/DEL/2014 & 7076/DEL/2014 S.7074/DEL/2014, 7075/DEL/2014 & 7076/DEL/2014 S.7074/DEL/2014, 7075/DEL/2014 & 7076/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR S SS S : : : : 200 200 200 200 2 22 2 - -- - 03, 2003 03, 2003 03, 2003 03, 2003 - -- - 04 & 2004 04 & 2004 04 & 2004 04 & 2004 - -- - 05 0505 05 M/S UTTA M/S UTTA M/S UTTA M/S UTTA RAKHAND VAN VIKAS RAKHAND VAN VIKAS RAKHAND VAN VIKAS RAKHAND VAN VIKAS NIGAM, NIGAM, NIGAM, NIGAM, ARANYA ARANYA ARANYA ARANYA- -- -VIKAS BHAWAN, VIKAS BHAWAN, VIKAS BHAWAN, VIKAS BHAWAN, 73, NEHRU ROAD, 73, NEHRU ROAD, 73, NEHRU ROAD, 73, NEHRU ROAD, DEHRADUN DEHRADUN DEHRADUN DEHRADUN 248 001. 248 001. 248 001. 248 001. PAN : AAALU0009M. PAN : AAALU0009M. PAN : AAALU0009M. PAN : AAALU0009M. VS. VS. VS. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -II, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, II, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, II, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, II, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SUBHASH ROAD, SUBHASH ROAD, SUBHASH ROAD, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN. DEHRADUN. DEHRADUN. DEHRADUN. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S HRI R.B. SHUKLA, SHRI ASHISH RAJ SHUKLA AND SHRI P.C. AGARWAL, ADVOCATES. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAHID NASIR ALI, CIT - DR. DATE OF HEARING : 09.03.2015 09.03.2015 09.03.2015 09.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.03.2015 11.03.2015 11.03.2015 11.03.2015 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : :: : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT-I, DEHRADUN DATED 9 TH OCTOBER, 2014 FOR THE AY 2002-03 TO 2004-05. 2. GROUND NOS.1 TO 5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTE D BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN UNDERTAKING OF UTTA RAKHAND GOVERNMENT. THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSID ERATION ARE AY 2002-03 TO 2004-05 WHILE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48 WAS ISSUED ON 6 TH MARCH, 2013. THUS, THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED WELL BEY OND THE PERIOD OF ITA-7074 TO 7076/DEL/2014 2 LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 149 FOR REOPENI NG OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED THE NOTICE BY TAKI NG RECOURSE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 150(1) WHICH PERMITS THE ISSU E OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AT ANY TIME. HE, HOWEVER, POINTED OUT THAT UNDER SECTION 150(1), NOTICE CAN BE ISSUED IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR T O GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER PASSED B Y ANY AUTHORITY BY WAY OF APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION. THAT IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT THE N OTICE IS BEING ISSUED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF UTTAR PRADESH FOREST CORPORATION (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS UPFC) WHEREIN THE ITAT HELD THAT 54% OF THE INTEREST EARNED ON TH E FDRS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE I.E. UTTARAKHAND FOREST DEVELOPMENT CO RPORATION (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS UFDC). IT IS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO GAVE EFFECT TO THE O RDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF UPFC DID NOT REDUCE 54% OF THE INTEREST FROM THE INCOME OF UPFC. THUS, INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 148 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TAXABILITY OF 54% INTEREST EARNED ON THE FDRS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE IN CONSEQUENCE OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO T HE FINDING OF THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT EXPL ANATION (3) AFTER SECTION 153 PROVIDES THAT WHERE BY AN ORDER ANY INC OME IS EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF ONE PERSON AND HELD TO BE THE INCOME OF ANOTHER PERSON, THEN AN ASSESSMENT OF SUCH OTHER PE RSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 150 BE DEEMED TO BE MADE IN CONS EQUENCE OF THE DIRECTION CONTAINED IN THE SAID ORDER PROVIDED SUCH OTHER PERSON WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE THE SAID ORDER WAS PASSED. HE STATED THAT NO OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WAS G IVEN BY THE ITAT BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF UPFC. IN S UPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - (I) RANI RAJENDRA KUMARI BA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, B-WARD, ALLAHABAD 130 ITR 708. (II) RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT 355 ITR 345. ITA-7074 TO 7076/DEL/2014 3 (III) RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. VS. CI T 355 ITR 356. (IV) CIT VS. GOEL BROTHERS 135 ITR 511. 4. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION SHOULD BE QUASHED. 5. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE STATED THAT THE ITAT, LUCKNO W BENCH IN THE CASE OF UPFC IN PARAGRAPH 26 HAS HELD IN CLEAR TERMS THA T 54% OF THE FDRS AND INTEREST THEREON PERTAINS TO UFDC AND THEREFORE , THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED IN THEIR HANDS. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF UFDC RIGHTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE OBSERVATION/DIREC TION CONTAINED IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE HONBLE LUCKNOW HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ITAT VIDE IT S ORDER DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. THUS, THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 6 TH MARCH, 2009 HAVING BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, THE A SSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. UFDC WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN REOPE NING OF ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE DIRE CTIONS OF THE ITAT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DIVISION OF UTTA RANCHAL STATE FROM UTTAR PRADESH. CONSEQUENTIALLY, THE ASSETS OF UPFC WERE TO BE DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN THE FOREST CORPORATION OF TWO S TATES. AS PER THE DIVISION OF STATES W.E.F. 1.4.2001, 54% OF THE FDRS MADE BY UPFC WERE HELD TO BE BELONGING TO UFDC AND THEREFORE, UFDC WA S ENTITLED TO 54% INTEREST ACCRUED ON SUCH FDRS. HOWEVER, THERE WAS SOME DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TWO STATE GOVERNMENTS ABOUT THE ALLOCAT ION OF THE FDRS AND OTHER ASSETS OF THE UPFC. THE MATTER WAS IN DI SPUTE ADMINISTRATIVELY AS WELL AS JUDICIALLY, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF UPFC TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF UPFC, HAD TAXED TH E 100% OF INTEREST ON FDRS IN THE HANDS OF UPFC. NEVERTHELESS, THE OR DER OF THE ITAT IS VERY CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS AND HAVING BEEN UPHELD BY T HE HONBLE HIGH ITA-7074 TO 7076/DEL/2014 4 COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF UFDC WAS FULLY JUST IFIED IN ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 150. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 SHOULD BE SUSTA INED. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE AY 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05. THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON 6 TH MARCH, 2013. THUS, THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED WELL BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS WHICH IS THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 149(1)(B ). AS PER REVENUE, THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED UNDER SECTION 150(1) W HEREIN THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT. SECTION 150(1) READS AS UNDER:- PROVISION FOR CASES WHERE ASSESSMENT IS IN PURSUAN CE OF AN ORDER ON APPEAL, ETC. 150. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 149, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 MAY BE ISSUED AT ANY TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER PASSED BY ANY AUTHO RITY IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT BY WAY OF APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION [OR BY A COURT IN ANY PROCEED ING UNDER ANY OTHER LAW]. 7. THUS, AS PER SECTION 150, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48 CAN BE ISSUED AT ANY TIME PROVIDED THE NOTICE IS ISSUED IN CONSEQ UENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER PASSED BY ANY AUTHORITY IN ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT BY WAY OF APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION. AS PER REVENUE, THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF UPFC DATED 6 TH MARCH, 2009. IT WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE REASONS RECORDE D FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR REA DY REFERENCE:- ITA-7074 TO 7076/DEL/2014 5 REASON FOR ISSUANCE FOR NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF M/S UTTARANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DEHRADUN FOR A.Y. 2002-03 THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW, BENCH- A LUCKNOW HAS PASSED AN ORDER AGAINST M/S U.P. FOREST CORPORATION, LUCKNOW VIDE I TA NO.785/LUC/05, 243/LUC/06 & 619/LUC/07 FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05. VIDE SETTLEMENT OF T HE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS DATED 28-07-2004 ASSETS (H ELD BY U.P. FOREST CORPORATION) AND LIABILITIES OF ERST WHILE UPFC WERE DIVIDED BETWEEN UPFC AND UFDC (UTTARANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) IN THE RATIO OF 46.54%. THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ABOVE APPEA L IN ITA NO.785/LUC/05, 243/LUC/06 & 619/LUC/07 FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05 HELD THAT THE INTEREST EARNED ON FDRS IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF UPFC, LUCKNOW TO THE EXTENT OF 46% OF TOTAL INTERES T. THE ITAT FURTHER HELD THAT THE BALANCE 54% OF INTER EST EARNED ON SUCH FDRS BELONGED TO UFDC AND IS TO BE ASSESSED IN ITS HANDS. THE ITAT FURTHER DIRECTED T O INITIATE ACTION IN THE HANDS OF UFDC IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE DETAILS OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON FDRS IS AS UNDER: S.NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR INVESTED IN FDRS INTEREST RECEIVED 54% SHARE IN INTEREST OF UFDC 1. 2002 - 03 3,49,14,34,174 34,69,96,162 18,73,77,927 2. 2003 - 04 3,36,63,61,515 35,07,59,940 18,94,10,368 3. 2004 - 05 41,61,38,83,943 50,37,63,843 27,20,32,475 THUS THE 54% SHARE IN INTEREST BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WORKS OUT TO RS.18,73,77,927/-, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. I HAVE, THEREFORE, REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME TO T HE EXTENT OF RS.18,73,77,927/- FOR A.Y. 2002-03 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUANC E OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ISSUE NOTICE U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 148 OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2002-03. 8. IDENTICAL REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN AY 2003- 04 AND 2004- 05. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED BEFORE US THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING ITA-7074 TO 7076/DEL/2014 6 OFFICER OF UPFC DATED 31 ST DECEMBER, 2010 BY WHICH HE HAS GIVEN EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 6 TH MARCH, 2009. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, HE DID NOT REDUCE THE 54% OF THE INTEREST ON FDRS. THE REVENUE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO TAKE DIFFERENT STAND IN THE CASE OF UPFC AND UFDC. IN THE CASE OF UFDC, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT OUT OF THE INTEREST ON FDRS, ONLY 46% IS TAXABLE IN THE CASE OF UPFC AND B ALANCE 54% IN THE CASE OF UFDC. BUT, WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE SAME ORDER OF THE ITAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF UPFC HAS ASSESSED THE 100% INCOME ON FDRS. EVEN IF THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSING OFFICERS, THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO TAKE CONTRARY STAND WHILE INTERPRETING AND GIVING EFFECT TO THE SAME ORDER OF THE ITAT. THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF S ECTION 150 IS THAT IF THE INCOME IS EXCLUDED FROM THE HANDS OF ONE PERSON TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE APPELLATE ORDER, THEN THE INCOME WHICH IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM ONE PERSON SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE PERSO N TO WHOM SUCH INCOME BELONGED. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US, THE REVENUE HAS ASSESSED 100% INCOME IN THE HANDS OF UP FC WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, AT THE SAME TIME, INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 IN THE CASE OF UFDC TO ASSESS 54% OF THE INTEREST. THIS CONTRARY VIEW OF THE REVENUE CANNOT BE PERMITT ED. 9. FURTHER, EXPLANATION (3) AFTER SECTION 153 READS AS UNDER:- EXPLANATION 3. WHERE, BY AN ORDER [REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTION (3)], ANY INCOME IS EXCL UDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF ONE PERSON AND HELD TO BE THE INCOME OF ANOTHER PERSON, THEN, AN ASSESSMENT OF SU CH INCOME ON SUCH OTHER PERSON SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 150 AND THIS SECTION, BE DEEMED TO BE ONE MADE IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FIN DING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN THE SAID ORDER, PROVIDED SUCH OTHER PERSON WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D BEFORE THE SAID ORDER WAS PASSED. 10. THAT HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F RANI RAJENDRA KUMARI BA (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER:- ITA-7074 TO 7076/DEL/2014 7 WHERE A NOTICE UNDER S. 148 WAS ISSUED ON THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO A FINDING BY TH E TRIBUNAL IN AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND THA T THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF HER HUSBAND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 64(III), BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUN ITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE EITHER THE AAC OR THE TRIBUNAL. 11. SIMILAR VIEW WAS REITERATED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOEL BROTHERS (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, THAT NO OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, AS CONTEMPLATED BY EXPLN. 3 TO S. 153, WAS GIVEN TO TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNA L IN THE APPEAL BY K. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN THE CASE OF K CLEARLY INDICATED THAT NO DIRECTION W AS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE INCOME EARNED FROM T HE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ASSES SED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL ONLY EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT NO INFERENCE OF BENAMI COUL D BE DRAWN FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE RECORD AND THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF K. WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL THERE WAS NEITHER ANY OCCAS ION FOR THE TRIBUNAL, NOR COULD IT BE LEGALLY HELD IN T HE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IT C OULD NOT BE CONTENDED THAT THE NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE W ERE ISSUED IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY F INDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN THE TRIBUNALS ORDER. AS S. 150(1) WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE, THE PROCEEDI NGS INITIATED UNDER S. 148 WERE BARRED BY LIMITATION. 12. THAT HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RU RAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER:- BEFORE A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961, CAN BE ISSUED BEYOND THE TIME LIMITS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 149, THE INGREDIENTS OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 153 HAVE TO BE SATISFIED. THOSE INGREDIENTS REQUIRE THAT THERE MUST BE A FIND ING THAT INCOME WHICH IS EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF ITA-7074 TO 7076/DEL/2014 8 ONE PERSON IS INCOME OF ANOTHER PERSON. THE SECOND INGREDIENT IS THAT BEFORE SUCH A FINDING IS RECORDE D, SUCH OTHER PERSON SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 13. NO CONTRARY DECISION IS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDG E. ADMITTEDLY, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER OF UPFC, THE ITAT LUCKNOW B ENCH HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO UFDC. THUS, AS PER E XPLANATION (3) AFTER SECTION 153 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD H IGH COURT AND HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, ACTION UNDER SECTION 148 CANNOT BE TAKEN IN THE CASE OF UFDC. IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF ABOVE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION AND RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE A LLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RANI RAJENDRA KUMARI BA (SUPRA), GOE L BROTHERS (SUPRA) AND OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RURA L ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 148 IN THE CASE OF UFDC ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION. THEREFORE, WE QUASH THE SAME AND CONSE QUENTIALLY, THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED IN PURSUANCE TO SUCH NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 ARE ALSO QUASHED. 14. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, THE OTHER GR OUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE AGAINST THE MERIT OF THE VARIOUS ADDITION S AND DISALLOWANCES DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AS ABOVE. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( (( ( KUL BHARAT KUL BHARAT KUL BHARAT KUL BHARAT ) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWA (G.D.AGRAWA (G.D.AGRAWA (G.D.AGRAWA L) L)L) L) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. ITA-7074 TO 7076/DEL/2014 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S UTTARAKHAND VAN VIKAS NIGAM, M/S UTTARAKHAND VAN VIKAS NIGAM, M/S UTTARAKHAND VAN VIKAS NIGAM, M/S UTTARAKHAND VAN VIKAS NIGAM, ARANYA ARANYA ARANYA ARANYA- -- -VIKAS BHAWAN, 73, NEHRU ROAD, VIKAS BHAWAN, 73, NEHRU ROAD, VIKAS BHAWAN, 73, NEHRU ROAD, VIKAS BHAWAN, 73, NEHRU ROAD, DEHRADUN DEHRADUN DEHRADUN DEHRADUN 248 001. 248 001. 248 001. 248 001. 2. RESPONDENT : ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -II, AAYAKAR II, AAYAKAR II, AAYAKAR II, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SUBHASH ROAD, BHAWAN, SUBHASH ROAD, BHAWAN, SUBHASH ROAD, BHAWAN, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN. DEHRADUN. DEHRADUN. DEHRADUN. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR