Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

ITA 869/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6017 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RUNI PAL CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRAVAN KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Question of law; Difference of opinion; Competent authority; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 234B; 133(6); 69A; 13; 22; 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S A, JAIPUR JH LANHI XLKA] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 867 & 869/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10 SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA, 97/77, SHIPRA PATH, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR (RAJ). CUKE VS. I.T.O., WARD-2(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AHPPB 0077 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR GUPTA (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAL (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/07/2021 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/09/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD.CIT(A), KOTA BOTH DATED 01/03/2018 FOR THE A.YS. 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 2. SINCE THE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE SE APPEALS, THEREFORE, BOTH WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE, A COMMON ORDER IS BEING PASSED. 3. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING SITUATION OF COVID-19 PAN DEMIC. ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 2 4. AS A LEAD CASE, FOR DECIDING THE APPEALS, WE TAK E ITA NO. 867/JP/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09, WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 1.1 THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 147/144 DATED 01.03.20 16 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, BARRED BY LIMITATION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.2 THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.3 THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL A S ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN PASSING THE EXPARTY ASSESSMENT ORDER IN GRO SS BREACH OF LAW WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE ASSESSMENT S O MADE AND CONSEQUENT ADDITION SO MADE MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED A ND DELETE. 3.1 RS.50,65,000/- : THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.50,65,000/- U/S 69A ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. HENCE THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BEING TOTALLY CONTRA RY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE THE ADDITION MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 3.2: THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW A S WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN PASSING THE ORDER IN GROSS BREACH OF LAW WITHOUT PROVIDING FURTHER ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE ADMITTED FACTS TH AT AN APPLICATION WAS MADE TO THE LD. AO FOR OBTAINING DO CUMENTS FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED TILL DATE. HENCE THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE AND CONSEQUENT ADDITIO N SO MADE BY THE LD. AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) MAY K INDLY BE QUASHED AND DELETE. 4. THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B & 234C. TH E APPELLANT ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 3 TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY OF CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. THE INTEREST, SO CHARGED, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISI ONS OF LAW AND FACTS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONOUR INDULGENCES TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER OF OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED REVISED OR MODIFIED GR OUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE SAME IS AS UNDER: 1.1 & 1.2. THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 147/144 DATED 0 1/03/2016,AS WELL AS THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147/148 ARE BAD IN LAW , ILLEGAL, INVALID, VOID AB INITIO ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR W ANT OF JURISDICTION, WITHOUT PROPER APPROVAL AND SATISFACT ION OF HIGHER AUTHORITIES U/S 151 OF THE ACT AND ALSO BARR ED BY LIMITATION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 5. ALL THE GROUNDS AND HE REVISED/MODIFIED GROUND S NO. 1.1. AND 1.2 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INTERRELATED AND INTERCONNECTED AND RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 147/144 DATED 01/03/2016,AS WELL AS THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147/148 ARE BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL, INVALID, VOID AB INITIO ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, WITHOUT PROPER APPR OVAL AND SATISFACTION OF HIGHER AUTHORITIES U/S 151 OF THE ACT AND ALSO BARR ED BY LIMITATION, THEREFORE, WE THOUGHT IT FIT TO DISPOSE OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AND LABOUR. HE HAS N OT FILED HIS RETURN OF ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 4 INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE INCOME STATED TO BE BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT. ON THIS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT) ON 24.03.2015 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AND ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.50,65,000/- IN HIS SAVINGS BANK A/C MAINTAINED W ITH OBC BANK, CHITRAKOOT JAIPUR DURING F.Y. 2007-08 (A.Y. 2008-09 ) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS ITR FOR A.Y. 2008-09. THE SOURCE OF A BOVE CASH DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT VERIFIABLE. THEREAFTER THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICES U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICES TI ME TO TIME WHICH HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON 01/03/2016, WHEREIN HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.50,65,000/- U/S 69A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THE FACT TH AT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE A.O. EX PARTE AND A REPLY DATED 19.0 1.2018 HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED THE CONTENTS OF THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ORDER AT PAGE NO. 3 PARA NO. 5, AS UNDER. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE MATTER WAS DECIDED EXPARTY U/S 144 AND TO BRING THE CORRECT FACTS AND INFORMATION BEFORE YOUR HONOR INSPECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WAS NECES SARY AND THE LD. AO HAS ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 5 ALLOWED THE INSPECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD JUS T ON 18.01.2019. ON INSPECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WE HAVE COME TO KNOW ABOUT SOME VITAL FACTS AND TECHNICALITIES. HENCE WE HAVE APPLIED FOR THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORD TO THE LD.AO ON 19.01.2019 COP Y OF THE SAME ARE ENCLOSED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED THOSE DOCUM ENTS TILL DATE. AND FOR THE JUSTICE AND TO DECIDE THE MATTER ON MERIT AND O N LEGAL ISSUE THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE VERY NECESSARY, BECAUSE THOSE DOCUMEN TS ARE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD NOT WITH THE ASSESSEE. BUT AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES AN D MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPE AL BEFORE THE ITAT ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 8. THE GROUNDS NO. 1.1 AND 1.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATE TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON T HE GROUND THAT THE ORDER U/S 147/144 DATED 01/3/2016 AS WELL AS ACTION TAKEN U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT ARE BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL, INVALID AND VOID AB INITIO ON FACTS OF THE CASE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, AS NO PRIOR APPROVAL AND SATISFACT ION OF THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES U/S 151 OF THE ACT WAS SOUGHT OR TAKEN AND ALSO ACT ION U/S 147 OF THE ACDT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE LD AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO RELIED ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE BENCH AND THE SUBMISSIONS QUA THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE AS UNDER: ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 6 1. NO APPROVAL FROM CIT OR PR. CIT U/S 151: AS IN THE ABOVE CASE THE NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED AFTER EXPIRY FOUR YEARS AND A S PER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 151 NOTICE AFTER FOUR YEARS CAN BE ISSUED ONLY AFTE R OBTAINING THE SANCTION OR APPROVAL U/S 151(1) FROM THE CIT OR PR. CIT. AND IN THE PRESENT CASE NO APPROVAL HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE PR . CIT BUT THE APPROVAL HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE ADD.CIT RANGE-2, J AIPUR ADMITTEDLY. HENCE THE ISSUANCE THE NOTICE 148 AND CONSEQUENT AS SESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS INVALID, ILLEGAL VOID AB-INITIO AND LIABL E TO BE QUASHED ON THIS GROUND ALONE. BECAUSE THIS IS THE CASE OF FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND FOUR YEARS HAS EXPIRED ON 31.03.2013 AND THE NOTICE U/S 148 HA S BEEN ISSUED ON DT. 24.03.2015 VIDE PAGE 1 PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. ALSO VIDE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED (PB1-3) AND APPROVAL U/S 151 (P B7-8). HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: I. DHADHA EXPORTS V/S ITO 377 ITR 347(RAJ.) II. DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SPL'S SIDDHARTHA L IMITED III. GHANSHYAM K. KHABRANI V/S ACIT 346 ITR 443(BO M.) IV. CIT V/S SPLS SIDDHARTHA LTD 345 ITR 223(DEL). V. CIT VS. SOYUZ INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD.(2015) 2 32 TAXMAN 0414 (DELHI HC) VI. PR. CIT VS. N.C. CABLES LTD.(2017) 98 CCH 0018 DEL HC 2. NO SATISFACTION OR APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE P R. CIT: FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF THE REASON RECORDED AND APPROVAL U/S 151 BY THE WITHOUT COMPETENT AUTHORITY IT IS CLEARLY PROVED THAT THEY HAVE NOT APPLIED THE MIND ON THE REASONS RECORDED THEY HAVE ONLY EXPRESS ED OR MENTIONED YES I AM SATISFIED BY THE ADD. CIT NOT BY PR. CIT O N THE REASON FORWARDED. WHILE AS PER DECISION OF PR. CIT VS. N. C. CABLES LTD.(2017) ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 7 98 CCH 0010 DEL HC IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SECTION 1 51 OF THE ACT CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT THE CIT, WHO IS THE COMPETENT AUTHO RITY TO AUTHORIZE THE REASSESSMENT NOTICE, HAS TO APPLY HIS MIND AND FORM AN OPINION. THE MERE APPENDING OF THE EXPRESSION APPROVED SAYS NO THING. IT IS NOT AS IF THE CIT HAS TO RECORD ELABORATE REASONS FOR AGREEIN G WITH THE NOTING PUT UP. AT THE SAME TIME, SATISFACTION HAS TO BE RECORD ED OF THE GIVEN CASE WHICH CAN BE REFLECTED IN THE BRIEFEST POSSIBLE MAN NER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EXERCISE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN RITUALISTIC AND FORMAL RATHER THAN MEANINGFUL, WHICH IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE SAFEGUAR D OF AN APPROVAL BY A HIGHER RANKING OFFICER. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COUR T IS SATISFIED THAT THE FINDINGS BY THE ITAT CANNOT BE DISTURBED. HERE IS ALSO THE SAME POSITION COPY OF REASON RECOR DED IS ENCLOSED(PB1- 3) BECAUSE NO SATISFACTION BY THE LD. PR. CIT, THE SATISFACTION IF ANY WAS OF THE LD. ADD. CIT, WHO IS NOT COMPETENT IN THE PR ESENT CASE. HE HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I. MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD. VS. ACIT (2018) 400 ITR 0397 (CHHATTISGARH) II. CIT VS. S. GOYANKA LIME & CHEMICALS LTD. (2015) 231 TAXMAN 0073 (MP) III. PAC AIR SYSTEMS P. LTD. VS. ITO (2020) 58 CCH 0001 DEL TRIB IV. GORIKA INVESTMENT AND EXPORT (P) LTD. VS. ITO (2018) 53 CCH 0168 DEL TRIB. V. TARA ALLOYS LTD. VS. ITO (2018) 63 ITR (TRIB) 0484 (DELHI) AND THE LD. CIT(A) KEPT MUM ON THIS VERY LEGAL PLEA , WHICH SHOWS HIS CONTRADICTORY APPROACH. ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 8 THEREFORE THE NOTICE, REASONS RECORDED ASSESSMENT A LL ARE THE ILLEGAL BAD VOID AB-INITIO AND BARRED BY LIMITATION AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 3. APPROVAL OF 70 ASSESSEES IN ONE LETTER ILLEGAL : FURTHER THE LD. ADD. CIT HAS GIVEN ONE CONSOLIDATED APPROVAL OF 70 ASSES SEES THROUGH ONE LETTER DT. 24.03.2015 (PB7-8) AND THIS SHOW HOW THE ADD. CIT HAS ACT IN FORMAL WAY. ON INSPECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD IT HAS ALSO BEEN COME TO KNOW THAT THERE WAS NO APPROVAL IN ORIGINAL LETTER OR DOCUMENTS. THE DOCUMENT OF APPROVAL WAS IN THE PHOTOCOPY. AND NO TICK ON THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE BY ORIGINAL PEN THERE WAS ONLY PENCIL TICK(VIDE SR. NO. 54 PB8). AND IT IS ALSO APPEAR THAT THE APPROVA L HAS BEEN GIVEN OR REACH IN THE OFFICE OF THE LD. AO AFTER THE 31.03.2 021. BECAUSE THE APPROVAL LETTER WAS NOT ATTACHED OR WITH THE REASON S RECORDED, THE SAME WAS MUCH AFTER THE REASONS RECORDED. THIS LETTER OF APPROVAL IS AFTER THE LETTER TO OBC U/S 133(6) DT. 18.05.2015. HOW THE AP PROVAL CAN BE GIVEN OF ALL THE 70 DIFFERENT ASSESSEESIN ONE DOCUMENTS, ALL ARE THE INDEPENDENT OR SEPARATE ASSESSEE AND REASON ARE DIF FERENT. THUS IT ALL SHOWS HOW THE WRONG AND ILLEGAL MANNER HAVE BEEN AD OPTED BY ALL THE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE ALL THE PROCEEDINGS ARE ILLE GAL, INVALID, VOID-AB-INITIO AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4. HENCE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THE ACTIO N TAKEN U/S 148 AND CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUP PORTED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSELS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO DELIBER ATED UPON THE DECISIONS CITED IN THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CITED BEFORE ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 9 US AND WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FROM PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE NOTICED THAT THIS IS THE CASE OF A.Y. 2008-09 AND THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 24.03.2015 WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY AFTER EXPIRY FOUR YE ARS. IN THIS CASE, FOUR YEARS HAS EXPIRED ON 31.03.2013 AND THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 24.03.2015. IT IS IMPORTANT TO MENTI ON HERE THAT SECTION 151 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISS UED U/S 148 OF THE ACT BY AN A.O. AFTER EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS UNLE SS THE PCIT OR CCIT OR CIT IS SATISFIED. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE SECTION 151 OF THE ACT AS UNDER: 151(1) NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END O F THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CH IEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED , ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. 151(2) IN A CASE OTHER THAN A CASE FALLING UNDER SECTION 1 51(1), NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, W HO IS BELOW THE RANK OF JOINT COMMISSIONER, UNLESS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER I S SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. 151(3) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTION (2), THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE PRINC IPAL COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER OR THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, AS THE CASE MAY BE, BEING SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT FITNESS OR A CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, NEE D NOT ISSUE SUCH NOTICE HIMSELF. ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 10 FROM PERUSAL OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151 OF THE AC T, WE OBSERVED THAT NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AFTER FOUR YEARS CAN BE I SSUED ONLY AFTER OBTAINING SATISFACTION, SANCTION OR APPROVAL U/S 151(1) FROM THE CIT OR PR. CIT. HOWEVER IN THE PRESENT CASE APPROVAL HAS NOT BEEN T AKEN FROM THE PR. CIT/CIT BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE ADD.CI T RANGE-2, JAIPUR ADMITTEDLY. 11. IT IS IMPORTANT TO MENTION HERE THAT LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED AND DESIRED TO PLACE THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON REC ORD AND ON THE OTHER SIDE THE LD. A/R HAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH TO CALL THE REPORT FROM THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING REQUEST OF BOTH THE PARTIES THE BENCH HAS DIRECTED TO THE LD. D/R TO FILE THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND ALSO TO CALL THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. THEREAFTER THE LD. DR FILED THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 09.04.2021 AND ASSESSMENT RECORD. FRO M PERUSAL OF THE REPORT OF THE A.O., WE FOUND THAT, AS ADMITTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS ALSO ADMITTED IN HIS REPORT DATED 09.04.2021 ALSO COPIES OF REASONS RECORDED VIDE PB 1-3 OF PAPER BOOK. IT WAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED IN ITS REPORT THAT NOTI CE U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2008-09 WAS ISSUED AFTER LAPSE OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND T HE APPROVAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ACCORDED BY THE ADDL.C IT, RANGE-2, JAIPUR AND NOT FROM THE PR.CIT/CIT. ADMITTEDLY, THE COMPET ENT AUTHORITIES TO ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 11 ACCORD THE APPROVAL AS PER SECTION 151 OF THE ACT W AS PR.CIT/CIT AND NOT THE ADDL.CIT, THEREFORE, ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ARE INVALID, ILLEGAL AND AR E LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT SAME WERE NOT ISSUED BY THE COMPETE NT AUTHORITY AND THUS STANDS QUASHED. WHILE REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, WE DRAW STRENGTH FROM THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. N.C. CABLES LTD.(2017) 98 CCH 0018 DEL HC , WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: THAT REASSESSMENTISSUANCE OF NOTICESANCTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICEASSESSEE HAD IN ITS RETURN FOR AY 2001-02 CLAIMED THAT SUM O F RS. 1 CRORE WAS RECEIVED TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION AMOUNTS AND A FURTHER SUM OF THIRTY FIVE LAKHS WAS CREDITED TO IT AS AN ADVANCE TOWARDS LOANORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3)HOWEVER, PURSUANT TO REASSESSMENT NOTICE, WH ICH WAS DROPPED DUE TO TECHNICAL REASONS, AND LATER NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND ASSESSMENTS WERE TAKEN UP AFRESHAFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AN D DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO ADDED BACK A SUM OF RS .1,35,00,000CIT(A) HELD AGAINST ASSESSEE ON LEGALITY OF REASSESSMENT NOTICE BUT ALLOWED ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERITS HOLDING THAT AO DID NOT CONDUCT APPROPRIA TE ENQUIRY TO CONCLUDE THAT SHARE INCLUSION AND ADVANCES RECEIVED WERE FROM BOG US ENTITIESTRIBUNAL ALLOWED ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERITSREVENUE APPEALED AGAINS T APPELLATE ORDER ON MERITSASSESSEES CROSS APPEAL WAS ON CORRECTNESS O F REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT TRIBUNAL UPHELD ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIONS AND DIS MISSED REVENUES APPEAL HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER APPLICATION OF MIN D BY CONCERNED SANCTIONING AUTHORITY U/S SECTION 151 AS A PRE-CONDITION FOR IS SUING NOTICE U/S 147/148HELD, SECTION 151 STIPULATES THAT CIT (A), WHO WAS COMPET ENT AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE REASSESSMENT NOTICE, HAD TO APPLY HIS MIND AND FORM OPINIONMERE APPENDING OF EXPRESSION APPROVED SAYS NOTHINGIT WAS NOT AS IF CIT (A) HAD TO RECORD ELABORATE REASONS FOR AGREEING WITH NOTING PUT UPAT SAME TIM E, SATISFACTION HAD TO BE RECORDED OF GIVEN CASE WHICH COULD BE REFLECTED IN BRIEFEST POSSIBLE MANNERIN PRESENT CASE, EXERCISE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN RITUALI STIC AND FORMAL RATHER THAN MEANINGFUL, WHICH WAS RATIONALE FOR SAFEGUARD OF AP PROVAL BY HIGHER RANKING OFFICERREVENUES APPEAL DISMISSED. ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 12 12. ONCE, WE QUASH THE PROCEEDING U/S 147 OF THE AC T, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED I N THIS APPEAL. 13. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. 14. NOW WE TAKE ITA NO. 869/JP/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2 009-10. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL: 1.1 THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 147/144 DATED 05.12.20 16 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, BAR RED BY LIMITATION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.2 THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.3 THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL A S ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN PASSING THE EXPARTY ASSESSMENT ORDER IN GROSS BR EACH OF LAW WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE AND CONSEQUENT ADDITION SO MADE MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND DELETE. 3.1 RS.1,15,00,500/- : THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,15,00,500/- U/S 69A ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE SAVING BA NK ACCOUNT. HENCE THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BEING TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE THE ADDITION MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FUL L. 3.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN PASSING THE ORDER IN GROSS BREACH OF LA W WITHOUT PROVIDING FURTHER ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE ADMITTED FACTS THAT AN APPLICA TION WAS MADE TO THE LD. AO FOR OBTAINING DOCUMENTS FROM THE ASSESSM ENT RECORD, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED TILL DATE. HENCE THE A SSESSMENT SO MADE AND CONSEQUENT ADDITION SO MADE BY THE LD. AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND DELETE. ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 13 4. THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A,234B&234C,. THE APPEL LANT TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY OF CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTERES T. THE INTEREST, SO CHARGED, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AN D FACTS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONOUR INDULGENCES TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER OF OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED REVISED OR MODIFIED GR OUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE SAME IS AS UNDER: 1.1 & 1.2. THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 147/144 DATED 0 1/03/2016,AS WELL AS THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147/148 ARE BAD IN LAW , ILLEGAL, INVALID, VOID AB INITIO ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR W ANT OF JURISDICTION, WITHOUT PROPER APPROVAL AND SATISFACT ION OF HIGHER AUTHORITIES U/S 151 OF THE ACT AND ALSO BARR ED BY LIMITATION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 15. ALL THE GROUNDS AND HE REVISED/MODIFIED GROUNDS NO. 1.1. AND 1.2 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INTERRELATED AND INTERCONNECTED AND RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 147/144 DATED 01/03/2016,AS WELL AS THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147/148 ARE BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL, INVALID, VOID AB INITIO ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, WITHOUT PROPER APPR OVAL AND SATISFACTION OF HIGHER AUTHORITIES U/S 151 OF THE ACT AND ALSO BARR ED BY LIMITATION, THEREFORE, WE THOUGHT IT FIT TO DISPOSE OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 14 16. FACTS, ACTION OF THE A.O. AS WELL AS UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. 17. THE LD. AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE BENCH AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: GOA:1 : INVALID ACTION AND PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/ S 148: FACTS: THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AND LABOUR. AS INFOR MED AT THIS TIME HE IS MENTALLY DISTURBED. FOR THE YEAR HE HAS NOT SUBMITT ED HIS RETURN OF INCOME NOT BEING THE TAXABLE INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY T HE AO ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS NOTICE U /S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 29.03.2016. NOTICE HAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE LD.AO HAS ISSUED THE NOTICES U/S 142(1). THE LD. AO HAS I SSUED THE NOTICES TIME TO TIME WHICH HAS ALSO NOT BEEN COMPLIED. THE LD. AO HAS ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE R EASON THAT AS PER AIR INFORMATION THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.1 ,15,00,500/- IN HIS SB A/C FOR THE F.Y. 2008-09 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2009-10 A ND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS ITR FOR A.Y. 2009-10. THE SOURCE OF A BOVE CASH DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NOT VERIFIABLE(PB10). IN WANT OF NOTICES IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE , HE COULD NOT MAKE THE COMPLIANCES AND THE LD. AO IN WANT OF REPLY PAS SED THE ASSESSMENT. WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION THE LD. AO HAS STATED THA T IN THE ASSESSEES CASE AIR DATA SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CASH DEP OSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,15,00,500/- IN HIS SB ACCOUNT VAISHALI URBAN C O-OP BANK LTD BRANCH SHYAM NAGAR, JAIPUR DURING THE F.Y. 2008-09- RELEVA NT TO A.Y. 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT THE SAME IS TREATED A S UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 69A AND MADE ADD ITION OF ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 15 RS.1,15,00,500/-. AND HE HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S144/147 BY ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,15,00, 500/-. IN FIRST APPEAL WE HAVE FILED A LETTER TO THE LD. C IT(A) BY PRAYING THAT IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE MATTER WAS DECIDED EXPARTY U/S 144 AND TO BRING THE CORRECT FACTS AND INFORMATION BEFORE YOUR HONOR INSPECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WAS NECES SARY AND THE LD. AO HAS ALLOWED THE INSPECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD JUST ON 18.01.2019. ON INSPECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WE HAVE COME TO KNOW ABOUT SOME VITAL FACTS AND TECHNICALITIES. HENCE WE HAVE APPLI ED FOR THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORD TO THE LD.AO ON ON 19.01.20 19 COPY OF THE SAME ARE ENCLOSED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED THOSE D OCUMENTS TILL DATE. AND FOR THE JUSTICE AND TO DECIDED THE MATTER ON MERIT AND ON LEGAL ISSUE THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE VERY NECESSARY, BECAUSE THOSE DOCUMEN TS ARE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD NOT WITH THE ASSESSEE. ALSO VIDE PAGE3 PARA 5 OF CIT(A) ORDER. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED OUR PRAY AND PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL. AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO AND ALSO CONFIRM ED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO. VIDE THE OBSERVATIONS OF CIT(A) AT PAGE 5 AND 10. 1. NO APPROVAL FROM CIT OR PR. CIT U/S 151: AS IN THE ABOVE CASE THE NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED AFTER EXPIRY FOUR YEARS AND A S PER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 151 NOTICE AFTER FOUR YEARS CAN BE ISSUED ONLY AFTE R OBTAINING THE SANCTION OR APPROVAL U/S 151(1) FROM THE CIT OR PR. CIT. AND IN THE PRESENT CASE NO APPROVAL HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE PR. CIT . BECAUSE KINDLY SEE PB 7-8 WHERE THE ITO (T&J) HAS SENT A LETTER TO THE ADD. C IT RANGE-2, JAIPUR, IN THIS LETTER THE ITO(T&J) HAS STATED THAT I AM DIRE CTED TO CONVEY THE PR. CITS APPROVAL U/S 151(1) OF THE IT ACT FOR ISSUE O F NOTICE U/S 1487 IN THE ABOVE NAMED CASES. THUS THE APPROVAL IS NOT GIVEN BY THE PR. CIT BUT THE SAME IS SIGNED OR GIVEN BY THE ITO (T&J) WHO IS NOT COMPETENT AUTHORITY. FURTHER THE APPROVAL OF 56 ASSESSEES ARE GIVEN IN ONE CONSOLIDATED LETTER AND IN THIS LETTER THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS AT S R. 46 AND EVEN THERE WAS NOT TICK IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE FILE OF THE AO ONLY THERE WAS PHOTOCOPY OF THIS LETTER NO ORIGINAL LETTER. WHICH SHOW NO APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE APPROVAL U/S 151. THE APPROVAL U/S 151 WAS ISSUED AND SIGNED BY THE LD ITO (T&J) (PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR) AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY HON 'BLE PR.CIT HIMSELF WHO IS COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THUS, APPROVAL WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THE PROCEEDINGS BASED ON SU CH ILLEGAL APPROVAL ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 16 AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER PASSED BY T HE ID. AO ARE NOT VALID AND HENCE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. BECAUSE THE POWER AND JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE NOT ICE U/S 148 IS GIVEN AFTER OBTAINING THE APPROVAL U/S 151 OF THE ACT IS PROVIDED UNDER SEC. 151 THE SAID SECTION WHICH READS AS UNDER. 151(1): NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 14 8 BY THE AO , AFTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF TH E RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS THE PR. CHIEF CIT OR CHIEF CIT OR PR. C IT OR CIT IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. 1.2THUS FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS THE APPROVAL AND SATISFACTION U/S 151 BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY ARE THE MANDATORY PRE-CONDITION. UNDISPUTEDLY HERE THE PRES CRIBED AUTHORITY IS THE HON'BLE PR. CIT AND THE SATISFACTION OF THE PRE SCRIBED AUTHORITY IS A MUST BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WHAT IS MATERIAL AND MANDATORY CONDITION IS THE APPROVAL AN D SATISFACTION OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND NON-ELSE. IN THE CASE OF A SSESSEE THE IMPUGNED APPROVAL U/S 151 DATED 29-03-2016 WAS SIGNED BY THE ITO (T&J) AND ISSUED AS PER DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE PR.CIT (E). THE SAME CAN BE PROVED BY THE APPROVAL LETTER (PB7-8) TO THE ISSUE AND THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER. I AM DIRECTED TO CONVEY THE PR. CITS APPROVAL U/ S 151(1) OF THE IT ACT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 1487 IN THE ABOVE NAMED CAS ES. EVEN THERE IS NO FULL SIGNATURE NOR DATE AT THE LAS T PAGE OF APPROVAL, HENCE IT IS NOT CLEAR WHEN THE APPROVAL WAS SIGNED BY THE ITO(T&J). FURTHER EVEN NO SIGNATURE IN-FRONT OF COPY TO :THE AO CONCE RNED (ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR VIDE PB10 1.3 OUR ABOVE CONTENTION IS DIRECTLY COVERED AND FU LLY SUPPORTED BY THE RECENT DECISION OF THIS HONBLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, DELHI VS CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR IN ITA NO. 1118/JP/2016 DATED 20.12.2017 VIDE PARA 10 PAGE 12 TO 21 OF ORDE R (PB6 TO 11 OF CASE LAWS INDEX). WHERE UNDER THE EXACTLY SAME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE THE HONBLE BENCH HAS QUASHED THE ORDER OF CIT(E). AND THE SAME IS ALSO PART OF OUR WS AND CONSIDER THE SAME. ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 17 1.4 FURTHER THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO FILLED THE MA I N THIS CASE AND THE MA FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO BEEN REJECTED BY T HE HONBLE BENCH ON DT 24.07.2018 (MA NO. 53/JP/2018). 1.5 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT THE DEPA RTMENT HAD FILLED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE RAJ. HIGH COURT AND THE HO NBLE RAJ. HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE VIDE ORDER IN CIT(E) V/S MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY IN DBIT NO.172/2018 DATED 31.07.2018 . 1.6 THEREAFTER, AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE RAJ . HIGH COURT THE DEPARTMENT HAD ALSO FILLED SLP BEFORE THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO DISMISSED THE SLP OF THE REVENUE VIDE ORDER IN CIT(E) V/S MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY IN SLP(C) NO.5241/2019 DATED 18.02.2019. 1.7 THUS THE ISSUE ON THE LEGALITY OF NOTICE IS DIR ECTLY COVERED AND HAS BEEN AFFIRMED, CONFIRMED, SETTLED AND DECIDED BY TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND NOW THERE REMAINS NOTHINGS AND COVERED MA TTER. HERE IS THE SAME PRINCIPAL IS APPLICABLE. HENCE THE ISSUANCE THE NOTICE 148 AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS INVALID, ILLEGAL VOID AB-INITIO AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. BECAUSE THIS IS THE CASE OF FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND FOUR YEARS HAS EXPIRED ON 31.03.2014 AND THE NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED ON DT. 29.03.2016.VIDE PAGE 1 PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ALSO VIDE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED(PB1-3) AND APPROVAL U /S 151 (PB10-11) 1.8.1ON THIS PREPOSITION KINDLY REFER DIRECT DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE RAJ. HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS IN CASE OF DHADHA EXPORTS V/S ITO 377 ITR 347(RAJ.) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD DISPUTE PERTAIN S TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE IT ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER-ASSESSEE BEYOND EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. PROVISO TO SECTION 151 (1 ) OF THE IT ACT IN THIS CONNECTION STIPULATED AT THE RELEVANT TIME THAT NO SUCH NOTICE ITSELF BE ISSUED AFTER THE OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFORESAID THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. SUBSEQUENTLY BY AMENDMENT INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.201 3 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, APART FROM CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER, HAVE ALSO BEEN INSERTED AS THE CO MPETENT AUTHORITY TO GRANT SUCH SANCTION. HOWEVER, SANCTION LETTER DATED 27.03.2014, WHICH INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS RELIED AND SUPPLIED TO THE P ETITIONER-ASSESSEE, ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 18 VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 02.01.2015, HAS BEEN ISSUE D BY JOINT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, RANGE-I, JAIPUR.(PARA 9) DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SPL'S SIDDHARTHA LIMITE D, HAS WHILE HOLDING THAT WHEN A PARTICULAR AUTHORITY HAS BEEN DESIGNATE D TO RECORD HIS/HER SATISFACTION ON ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE, THEN IT IS TH AT AUTHORITY ALONE WHO SHOULD APPLY HIS/HER INDEPENDENT MIND TO RECORD HIS /HER SATISFACTION AND SATISFACTION SO RECORDED SHOULD BE 'INDEPENDENT' AN D NOT 'BORROWED' OR 'DICTATED' SATISFACTION, REJECTED CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE AUTHORITY OTHER THAN THE ONE WHO WAS COMPETENT TO GRANT SUCH APPROVAL, WAS MERE IRREGULARITY COMMITTE D BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. AND THAT IT WAS RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 292B OF THE IT ACT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH IRREGULARITY IS NOT CURABLE UND ER SECTION 292B. PARA 11) RESORT TO SECTION 292B OF THE IT ACT CANNOT BE MADE TO VALIDATE AN ACTION, WHICH HAS BEEN RENDERED ILLEGAL DUE TO BREA CH OF MANDATORY CONDITION OF THE SANCTION ON SATISFACTION OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER UNDER PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SE CTION 151. THIS IS AN INHERENT LACUNAE AFFECTING THE VERY CORRECTNESS OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND IS SUCH WHICH IS NOT CURABLE BY REC OURSE TO SECTION 292B OF THE IT ACT. 1.8.2 ALSO REFER GHANSHYAM K. KHABRANI V/S ACIT 346 ITR 443(BOM.) AND 1.8.3 IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S SPLS SIDDHARTHA LTD 3 45 ITR 223(DEL). REASSESSMENTSANCTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 151 (1)AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 147 READ WITH S. 148 FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENT A FTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH W AS SUBSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE BY ITAT ON GROUND THAT REQUISITE APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL CIT, WHICH IS MANDATORILY REQUIRED, WAS NOT TAKENHELD, AO WAS REQUIRED TO TAKE APPROVAL OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY U/S 151 (1)AO HAD SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER ONLYTHEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE JOINT COMMISSIONER/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER HAD GRANTED TH E APPROVAL FURTHER, EVEN THOUGH THE FILE WAS ROUTED THROUGH AD DITIONAL COMMISSIONER, HE DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND OR GAVE ANY SANCTIONINSTEAD, HE REQUESTED COMMISSIONER TO ACCORD THE APPROVALIT , THUS, CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS AN IRREGULARITY CURABLE U/S. 292BI F A STATUTORY AUTHORITY HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION, HE HAS TO EXERCI SE IT ACCORDING TO ITS OWN DISCRETIONIF DISCRETION IS EXERCISED UNDER DIR ECTION OR IN COMPLIANCE WITH SOME HIGHER AUTHORITIES INSTRUCTION, THEN IT W ILL BE CASE OF FAILURE TO EXERCISE DISCRETION ALTOGETHERTHEREFORE, THE TRIBU NAL HAS RIGHTLY DECIDED THE LEGAL ASPECT. ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 19 1.8.4IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOYUZ INDUSTRIAL RESOUR CES LTD.(2015) 232 TAXMAN 0414 (DELHI HC)HELD REASSESSMENTSANCTION FO R ISSUANCE OF NOTICEASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURNS IN A NORMAL C OURSE AND ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(1)BASED UPON INFORMATION RECEIV ED BY AO, A SATISFACTION NOTE WAS RECORDED AND A NOTICE WAS ISS UED BEYOND FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNDER PROVISO TO S 147(1) REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETEDASSESSEE CL AIMED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 147 WAS UNSUSTAINABLE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 151 CIT(A) SANCTIONED RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THROUGH ISSUANCE OF NOTIC E U/S 148ITATS ALLOWED ASSESSEES APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT THE CIT L ACKED THE AUTHORITY TO SANCTION RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THROUGH ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 HELD, PRIVY COUNCIL IN NAZIR AHMAD V. EMPEROR HAD L AID DOWN THAT IF THE STATUTE MANDATES THAT SOMETHING BE DONE IN A PARTIC ULAR MANNER, IT SHOULD BE IN THAT MANNER OR NOT AT ALLTHUS, IT WAS NOT CO URTS JOB TO RENDER, IN THE PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION, AN ENTIRE PROVISION ACADEMIC OR INOPERATIVEAS PER SECTION 151, IN CASE THE ORIGINA L ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED OTHER THAN I.E. OTHERWISE THAN U/S 143( 3) OR DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, COMPETENT AUTH ORITY WOULD BE THE JOINT COMMISSIONERINSTANT COURT HAD TO GIVE EFFECT TO PLAIN WORDS OF THE STATUTE WHICH UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED THAT THE COMPETE NT AUTHORITY IN SUCH CASES WAS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER AND NOT THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONERSINCE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T WAS COMPLETED OTHER THAN THE EVENTUALITIES CONTEMPLATED IN SECT ION 151(1), I.E. IT WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1), THUS, CLEARLY SECTION 151(2) WOULD BE APPLICABLE NO INFIRMITY WAS FOUND IN THE ORDER OF THE ITATREV ENUES APPEAL DISMISSED. 1.8.5IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. N.C. CABLES LTD.(20 17) 98 CCH 0018 DELHC HELD THAT REASSESSMENTISSUANCE OF NOTICESAN CTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICEASSESSEE HAD IN ITS RETURN FOR AY 2001-02 CL AIMED THAT SUM OF RS. 1 CRORE WAS RECEIVED TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION AMOU NTS AND A FURTHER SUM OF THIRTY FIVE LAKHS WAS CREDITED TO IT AS AN A DVANCE TOWARDS LOAN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3)HOWEVE R, PURSUANT TO REASSESSMENT NOTICE, WHICH WAS DROPPED DUE TO TECHN ICAL REASONS, AND LATER NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND ASSESSMENTS WERE TAKEN UP AFRESHAFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND DOCUMENTS P RODUCED IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO ADDED BACK A SUM OF RS .1,35,00,000 CIT(A) HELD AGAINST ASSESSEE ON LEGALITY OF REASSES SMENT NOTICE BUT ALLOWED ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERITS HOLDING THAT AO DID NOT CONDUCT APPROPRIATE ENQUIRY TO CONCLUDE THAT SHARE INCLUSIO N AND ADVANCES RECEIVED WERE FROM BOGUS ENTITIESTRIBUNAL ALLOWED ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERITSREVENUE APPEALED AGAINST APPELLATE ORDER ON MERITSASSESSEES CROSS APPEAL WAS ON CORRECTNESS OF REOPENING OF ASS ESSMENTTRIBUNAL UPHELD ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIONS AND DISMISSED RE VENUES APPEAL ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 20 HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER APPLICATION OF MIN D BY CONCERNED SANCTIONING AUTHORITY U/S SECTION 151 AS A PRE-COND ITION FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 147/148HELD, SECTION 151 STIPULATES THAT CIT ( A), WHO WAS COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE REASSESSMENT NOTIC E, HAD TO APPLY HIS MIND AND FORM OPINIONMERE APPENDING OF EXPRESSION APPROVED SAYS NOTHINGIT WAS NOT AS IF CIT (A) HAD TO RECORD ELAB ORATE REASONS FOR AGREEING WITH NOTING PUT UPAT SAME TIME, SATISFACT ION HAD TO BE RECORDED OF GIVEN CASE WHICH COULD BE REFLECTED IN BRIEFEST POSSIBLE MANNERIN PRESENT CASE, EXERCISE APPEARS TO HAVE BE EN RITUALISTIC AND FORMAL RATHER THAN MEANINGFUL, WHICH WAS RATIONALE FOR SAFEGUARD OF APPROVAL BY HIGHER RANKING OFFICERREVENUES APPEAL DISMISSED. 2. APPROVAL OF 56 ASSESSEE;S IN ONE LETTER ILLEGAL: FURTHER THE LD. PR. CIT HAS GIVEN ONE CONSOLIDATED APPROVAL OF 56 ASSESSEE S THROUGH ONE LETTER DT. 29.03.2016 (PB7-8) AND THIS SHOW HOW THE PR. CI T HAS ACT IN FORMAL WAY. ON INSPECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD IT HAS ALSO BEEN COME TO KNOW THAT THERE WAS NO APPROVAL IN ORIGINAL LETTER OR DOCUMENTS. THE DOCUMENT OF APPROVAL WAS IN THE PHOTOCOPY. AND NO T ICK ON THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. AND IT IS ALSO APPEAR THAT THE APPROV AL HAS BEEN GIVEN OR REACH IN THE OFFICE OF THE LD. AO AFTER THE 31.03.2 021. BECAUSE THE APPROVAL LETTER WAS NOT ATTACHED OR WITH THE REASON S RECORDED, THE SAME WAS MUCH AFTER THE REASONS RECORDED. HOW THE APPRO VAL CAN BE GIVEN OF ALL THE ASSESSEE IN ONE DOCUMENTS, ALL ARE THE INDE PENDENT OR SEPARATE ASSESSEE AND REASON ARE DIFFERENT. THUS IT ALL SHOW S HOW THE WRONG AND ILLEGAL MANNER HAVE BEEN ADOPTED. 3. NO SATISFACTION OR APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AD D. CIT AND PR. CIT: FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF THE REASON RECORDED AND APPR OVAL U/S 151 BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IT IS CLEARLY PROVED THAT THEY HAVE NOT APPLIED THEIR MIND ON THE REASONS RECORDED THEY HAVE ONLY EXPRESS ED OR MENTIONED YES ON THE REASON FORWARDED WHILE AS PER DECISION OF PR. CIT VS. N. C. CABLES LTD.(2017) 98 CCH 0010 DEL HC IT HAS BEEN HE LD THAT SECTION 151 OF THE ACT CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT THE CIT, WHO IS THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE THE REASSESSMENT NOTICE, HAS TO APPLY HIS MIND AND FORM AN OPINION. THE MERE APPENDING OF THE EXPRESSION APPR OVED SAYS NOTHING. IT IS NOT AS IF THE CIT HAS TO RECORD ELABORATE REASON S FOR AGREEING WITH THE NOTING PUT UP. AT THE SAME TIME, SATISFACTION HAS T O BE RECORDED OF THE GIVEN CASE WHICH CAN BE REFLECTED IN THE BRIEFEST P OSSIBLE MANNER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EXERCISE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN RIT UALISTIC AND FORMAL RATHER THAN MEANINGFUL, WHICH IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE SAFEGUARD OF AN APPROVAL BY A HIGHER RANKING OFFICER. FOR THESE REA SONS, THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE FINDINGS BY THE ITAT CANNOT BE D ISTURBED. ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 21 HERE IS ALSO THE SAME POSITION COPY OF REASON RECOR DED IS ENCLOSED(PB10- 11) BECAUSE NO SATISFACTION BY THE LD. PR. CIT OR L D. ADD. CIT. ALSO REFER MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD. VS. ACI T (2018) 400 ITR 0397 (CHHATTISGARH) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. GOYANKA LIME & CHEMICALS LTD. (2015) 231 TAXMAN 0073 (MP) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHILE ACCORD ING SANCTION, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX HAS ONLY RECORDED SO YES, I AM SATISFIED IF THE CASE IN HAND IS ANALYSED ON THE B ASIS OF THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLE, THE MECHANICAL WAY OF RECORDING SATISFAC TION BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, WHICH ACCORDS SANCTION FOR ISSUING NO TICE UNDER SECTION 147, IS CLEARLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND WE FIND THAT ON S UCH CONSIDERATION BOTH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE INTERFERED INTO THE MATTER. IN DOING SO, NO ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED WARRANTING RECONSIDERATION .(PARA 7) AS FAR AS EXPLANATION TO SECTION 151, BROUGHT INTO FORCE BY FINANCE ACT, 2008 IS CONCERNED, THE SAME ONLY PERTAINS TO ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE AND NOT WITH REGARD TO THE MANNER OF RECORDING SATISFACTION . THAT BEING SO, THE SAID AMENDED PROVISION DOES NOT HELP THE REVENUE. N O QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED IN THE MATTER, WARRANTING RECONSIDERATION APPEALS ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. ALSO REFER PAC AIR SYSTEMS P. LTD. VS. ITO (2020) 5 8 CCH 0001 DEL TRIB IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT REASSESSMENTINCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT ASSESSEE FILED PRESENT APPEAL CHALLENGING ORDER OF CIT(A) WHEREIN, AOS ACTION WAS ACCEPTEDASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT AO HAD ERRED IN ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147/148 BASED ON INV ALID AND MECHANICAL APPROVAL GRANTED BY ADDL. CITHELD, APPROVAL GRANTE D BY ADDL. CIT WAS A MECHANICAL AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, WHICH W AS NOT VALID FOR INITIATING RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BECAUSE FROM SAID REMARKS, IT WAS NOT COMING OUT AS TO WHICH MATERIAL; INFORMATION; D OCUMENTS AND WHICH OTHER ASPECTS WENT GONE THROUGH AND EXAMINED BY ADD L. CIT FOR REACHING TO SATISFACTION FOR GRANTING APPROVALTHEREAFTER, A O HAD MECHANICALLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148REOPENING IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR AY IN DISPUTE WAS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVED TO BE QUASHEDAPPROVAL GRAN TED BY ADDL. CIT WAS A MECHANICAL AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, W HICH WAS NOT VALID FOR INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH S. 151 THUS, NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WAS INVALID AND ACCORDINGLY, REOPENING IN THIS WAS BAD IN LAW AND T HEREFORE, SAME WAS HEREBY QUASHEDASSESSEES APPEAL PARTLY ALLOWED. IN THE CASE OF GORIKA INVESTMENT AND EXPORT (P) LTD . VS. ITO (2018) 53 CCH 0168 DEL TRIB REOPENINGINCOME ESCAPI NG ASSESSMENT VALIDITY THEREOFASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DE CLARING INCOME WHICH ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 22 WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1)AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 AFTER RECORDING REASONS THAT INCOME OF ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSM ENTAO FRAMED ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 BY MAKING ADDITIO NCIT(A) UPHELD ORDER OF AOHELD, IN CIT VS N.C. CABLES LTD., IT WA S HELD THAT CIT(A) WHO WAS COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE REASSESSMENT N OTICE HAD TO APPLY HIS MIND AND FORM OPINIONMERE APPENDING OF EXPRESS ION APPROVED SAYS NOTHINGSATISFACTION HAD TO BE RECORDED OF GIVEN CA SE WHICH COULD BE REFLECTED IN BRIEFEST POSSIBLE MANNEREXERCISE APPE ARS TO HAD BEEN RITUALISTIC AND FORMAL RATHER THAN MEANINGFUL, WHIC H WAS RATIONALE FOR SAFEGUARD OF APPROVAL BY HIGHER RANKING OFFICERAO INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 R.W.S. 148 ON BASIS OF INFORMATION FURNISH ED BY DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION UNIT AND CIT GAVE APPROVAL WITHOUT AP PLYING HIS MIND IN SLIP-SHOD MANNERAS APPROVAL/SANCTION GIVEN BY CIT WAS WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION, REOPENING WAS NOT SUSTAINAB LEASSESSEES APPEAL ALLOWED. TARA ALLOYS LTD. VS. ITO (2018) 63 ITR (TRIB) 0484 (DELHI)REASSESSMENTINCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENTVALI DITY THEREOF CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AS PER P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 AND 151 AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEEPROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 WERE INITIATED AFTER RECORDING REASONS ON BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVES TIGATION WING OF DEPARTMENT ON BASIS OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY A SKED TO EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY TRANSACTION WITH G RECEIVED AS SHARE APPLIC ATION MONEY/SHARE CAPITAL AND WHY SAME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED OR AD DED IN INCOME OF ASSESSEEAO HELD THAT IT WAS CAMOUFLAGE JUST TO INTRODUCE ITS OWN FUND THROUGH ENTRY OPERATOR THEREFORE AMOUNT WAS AD DED IN INCOME OF ASSESSEE COMPANY AS UNEXPLAINED U/S 68CIT(A) CO NFIRMED REASSESSMENT AND ADDITION MADE BY AO OF SHARE CAPIT AL AND UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITHELD, NOTICE U/S 148 COULD BE QUASHED I F BELIEF WAS NOT BONA FIDE OR ONE BASED ON VAGUE, IRRELEVANT AND NON-SPEC IFIC INFORMATIONBASIS OF BELIEF SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE FROM MATERIAL ON RE CORD WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WITH AO WHEN HE RECORDED REASONSTHERE SHOULD BE LI NK BETWEEN REASONS AND EVIDENCE/MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH AOCOM MISSIONER HAD SIMPLY AFFIXED APPROVED AT BOTTOM OF NOTE SHEET P REPARED BY ITO TECHNICALITO COULD NOT HAVE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY REASONS OF ASSESSEE S FAILUR E TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS AND IF COMMISSIONER HAD READ REPORT CAREFULLY HE COULD NOT HAVE COME TO CONCLUSION THAT THIS WAS FIT CASE FOR ISSUI NG NOTICE U/S 148 COMMISSIONER HAD SIMPLY PUT APPROVED AND SIGNED R EPORT THEREBY GIVING SANCTION TO AONOWHERE COMMISSIONER HAD RECORDED SA TISFACTION NOTE, NOT EVEN IN BRIEF AFTER APPLYING HIS MINDAFTER EXP IRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NOTICE U/S 148 SHO ULD NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS COMMISSIONER WAS SATISFIED THAT IT WAS FIT C ASE FOR ISSUE OF SUCH ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 23 NOTICEREASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOTICE BEING BA D IN LAW WERE QUASHEDASSESSEES APPEAL ALLOWED. AND THE LD. CIT(A) KEPT MUM ON THIS VERY LEGAL PLEA , DESPITE DECIDING THE CASE ON LEGAL ISSUE ALSO, WHICH SHOWS HIS CONTRADIC TORY APPROACH. THEREFORE THE NOTICE, REASONS RECORDED, ASSESSMENT ALL ARE THE ILLEGAL BAD VOID AB-INITIO AND BARRED BY LIMITATION AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4. NO INCOME ESCAPED: IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTI CE U/S 148 CAN BE ISSUED ONLY WHEN THERE IS ANY ESCAPE OF INCOME BECA USE S. 147 PROVIDES THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY AS SESSMENT YEAR, HERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESCAPED ANY INCOME BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF INCOME RE CEIVED ON THE SALE AGREEMENT OF AGRICULTURE LAND IN THE YEAR OF 2005. WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE IF THERE IS NEITHER THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE NOR PROVED THEN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS INVALID. 5. REASON TO BELIEVE AND NOT REASON TO SUSPECT: 5.1IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN UNDER THE AMEN DED LAW BY THE FINANCE ACT 1989 THE CONDITION PRECEDENT OR WORDS, WHICH C ONTINUES RIGHT SINCE INCEPTION TILL DATE, ARE REASON TO BELIEVE' AND NO T 'REASON TO SUSPECT'. THE WORD BELIEVE HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN CONTRADI STINCTION OF SUSPICION OR OPINION. BELIEF INDICATES SOMETHING CONCRETE OR RELIABLE. KINDLY REFER GANGASHARAN & SONS PVT. LTD. 130 ITR 1 (SC), AND IT O V. LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS, (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). 5.2THE BELIEF OF THE OFFICER SHOULD BE AS TO ESCAPE MENT OF INCOME AND THE BELIEF SHOULD NOT BE A PRODUCT OF IMAGINATION OR SP ECULATION. THERE MUST BE REASON TO INDUCE THE BELIEF. THE COURT CAN AL WAYS EXAMINE THIS ASPECT THOUGH THE DECLARATION OR SUFFICIENCY OF THE REASONS FOR THE BELIEF CANNOT BE INVESTIGATED BY THE COURT (SHEO NATH SING H V. AAC, (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC). IN THE CASE OF MUKESH MODI &ORS. VS. DCIT 366 ITR 4 18 (RAJ) HELD THAT EVASION OF TAX WAS MENACE TO SOCIETY BUT ASSESSEE CONTRIBUTING TO THE EXCHEQUER IN FORM OF TAX COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO S UFFER ON MERE PRETENCE THAT IT HAD EVADED PAYMENT OF TAX. ROWING AND FISHI NG ENQUIRY IN HANDS OF AO ON MERE SUSPICION OR CHANGE OF OPINION COULD NOT SATISFY EXPRESSION 'REASON TO BELIEVE' EXPOSING ASSESSEE FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. NOTICE FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS NOT IN CONSO NANCE AND IN CONFORMITY WITH UNDER SECTION 147 AND MADE SPECIFIE D NOTICE VULNERABLE. HIGH COURT POINTED THAT, REASONS GIVEN BY AO FOR IS SUANCE OF NOTICE FOR ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 24 RE-ASSESSMENT WERE NOT PLAUSIBLE AND CONVINCING. IN FACT ORDER, WHERE OBJECTIONS WERE REJECTED BY AO, WAS NOT SELF-CONTAI NED SPEAKING ORDER. UPON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER, IT WAS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE SAME CONTAINS CONCLUSIONS AND IS BEREFT OF REASONS.(PARA 12) NOTICES ISSUED TO ASSESSEE BY AO UNDER SECTION 147 /148 WERE NOT SATISFYING THE PRE-REQUISITES FOR SAME. THERE WAS N O WHISPER IN THE NOTICE, OR IOTA OF PROOF THAT WHILE ISSUING SAME. AO HAD RE ASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. NOTICE ISSUED BY AO SIMPLY FOR HIS OWN VERIFI CATION AND TO CLEAR HIS DOUBTS AND SUSPICIONS TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATERIAL WH ICH WERE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AT TIME OF PASSING OF T EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THE LEGISLATURE UNDER SECTION 147 HAS NOT CLOTHED AO WI TH SUCH JURISDICTION THEREFORE THE ACTION COULD NOT BE UPHELD IN THE BAC KGROUND OF FACTS OF INSTANT CASE. ONE MORE REDEEMING FACT WHICH HAD DIR ECT NEXUS WITH THE SUBSEQUENT RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND RAMIFICATI ON OF THE SAME HAD CULMINATED INTO RE-ASSESSMENT ORDERS WAS THE IMPUGN ED ORDER WHERE AO REJECTED THE OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEES PUR SUANT TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147/148. ORDER PASSED BY AO IN THIS BEHALF WAS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER WHICH COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. IN VIEW OF LEGA L INFIRMITY IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147/148 AND LACONIC ORDER OF AO WHILE REJECTING OBJECTIONS ASSESSEE THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE L IABLE TO BE ANNULLED.(PARA16). THEREFORE ALL THE PROCEEDINGS ARE ILLEGAL INVALID V OID AB INITIO AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 6. HENCE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THE ACTIO N TAKEN U/S 148 AND CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. GOA-2: ADDITION OF RS.1,15,00,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF C ASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FACTS: THE BRIEF FACTS KINDLY REFER FACTS OF GOA-1 IN FIRST APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE OR DER AND FINDING OF THE LD.. HENCE THIS APPEAL. SUBMISSIONS : 1. ATTHE VERY OUTSET IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDL Y THE LD. AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.1,15,00, 500/- IN THE BANK VAISHALI URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD SHYAM NAGAR JAIPUR IN THE F.Y. 2008-09 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2009-10 VIDE PAGE 2 PARA 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 25 2. SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ESTA BLISHED: AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.1,15,00,500/- DUR ING THE YEAR IN THE BANK (PB3) ON VARIOUS DATES. AS THE LD. AO HIMSELF HAS MADE INQUIRY U/S 133 FROM THE BANK AND M/S RANGROOP BUILDERS PT. LTD .. ON INQUIRY IT HAS BEEN PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AGRICULTUR E LAND. ON 25.03.2005 HE HAS MADE AN AGREEMENT TO SALE OF HIS AGRICULTURE LAND FOR RS.1,65,00,000/- TO M/S RANGRUP BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VIDE SALE AGREEMENT (PB17-20) OUT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT HE HAD RECEIVED R S.1,15,00,000/- THROUGH VARIOUS CHEQUES VIDE DETAILS AT (PB19-20). THEREAFTER HE WITHDRAWN THE CASH. AS THE SALE AGREE MENT HAS BEEN CANCELLED, HENCE ASSESSEE HAS TO RETURN THE SALE AG REEMENT AMOUNT TO THE M/S RANGROOP BUILDERS PVT. LTD. HENCE HE HAS AGAIN DEPOSITED THAT CASH AMOUNT IN HIS BANK AND ISSUED THE CEHQUES TO M/S RA NGROOP BUILDERS. THUS WHEN THE LD. AO HIMSELF MADE THE INQUIRY AND D ETAILS AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISPROVED RATHER ACCEPTED, DESPITE HE MADE THE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REPLY OF THE M/S RAN GROOP BUILDERS FILED U/S 133(6) TO THE LD. AO WITH DETAILS ARE ENCLOSED AT (PB12-22), WHEN THE LD. AO HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION AGAINST M/S RANGROO P BUILDERS PVT. LTD AND HE HAS NOT SPEAK A SINGLE WORD ON THESE VITAL E VIDENCES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WHICH SHOWS THE CONTRADICTORY APP ROACH OF THE LD. AO. THUS WHEN THE LD. AO HIMSELF COLLECTED THE EVIDENC E OF THE CASH DEPOSITS WITH THE HELP OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND HE HAS N OT DOUBTED IN ANY MANNER OR TYPE. THEN HOW THE ADDITION CAN BE MADE B LINDLY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 3.ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE AND AT THE WORST ALTHOUGH NOT REQUIRED MAY DIRECT TO THE LD. AO TO M AKE FURTHER INQUIRY AND OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. AS THE LD. AO DESPITE HAVING DETAILS IN HIS HAND NOT TRIED TO BRING PROPE R EVIDENCES ON RECORD. 4. HOWEVER THE LD. AO HAS NOT REBUTTED THESE EVIDEN CE WITH THE HELP OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OR MATERIAL RATHER PROCEE DS HIS OWN PRESUMPTION, ASSUMPTION AND SUSPICION. WHETHER ANY ADDITION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR MATERIAL. WITHOUT PROVING THE SAME NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE ASSUMPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS O R GUESS WORK. AND LOOKING TO THE RECORD AND ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS VE RY CLEAR THAT THE LD. AO HAS PROCEEDED ONLY SUSPICION, WITHOUT ANY COGENT MA TERIAL EVIDENCE. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT AN ALLEGATION REMAINS A MERE ALLEGATION UNLESS PROVED. SUSPICION CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF REALITY, ARE THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES KINDLY REFER DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS 26 ITR 775 (SC) ALSO REFER R.B.N.J. NAIDU V/S CIT 29 ITR 194 (NAG), KANPUR STE EL CO. LTD. V/S CIT 32 ITR 56 (ALL).ALSO REFER CIT V/S KULWANTRAI 291 ITR 36( DEL). IN CIT V/S SHALIMAR BUILDWELLPVT LTD 86 CCH 250(ALL) IT HAS BE EN HELD THAT THE AO ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 26 MADE THE ADDITION MERELY ON SUSPICION WHICH WAS NOT DESIRABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. 5. HENCE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION ENTIRE ADDITION MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. GOA-3 CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B: FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS: THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING THE INTEREST U /S 234 AND AS PER LAW AND SETTLED LEGAL POSITION IN THIS CASE NO INTEREST CAN BE CHARGED U/S 234B AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 18. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SU PPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO RELIED UPON DECIS IONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS UTTAM CHAND NAHAR 295 ITR 403 (RAJ) AND ITO VS MAHA DEO LAL TULSIAN, 110 ITR 786 (KOL). 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM PERU SAL OF THE RECORD, WE OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. HAS REOPENED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ESCAPING THE INCOME OF RS.1,15,00,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH D EPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF IN COME AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 29.03.2016 AFTER RECORDING R EASONS THAT INCOME OF ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE MEANING U /S 147 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER THE AO FRAMED ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1,15,00,000/- AND THE LD. CIT (A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO. BEFORE US THE LD. A/R HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION T O THE REASONS RECORDED AND SATISFACTION OF THE PR. CIT AND ADDL. CIT PLACE D AT PAGE NO. 10-11 OF ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 27 THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHERE THE ADDL. CIT HAS M ENTIONED ONLY RECOMMENDED AND PR. CIT HAS MENTIONED ONLY YES, WHICH SHOWS NO APPLICATION OF MIND AND PROPER SATISFACTION BY THEM ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO. IN THIS REGARD, WE DRAW STRENGT H FROM THE DECISON IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. N. C. CABLES LTD.(2017) 98 CCH 0010 DEL HC WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SECTION 151 OF THE ACT CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT THE CIT, WHO IS THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO AUT HORIZE THE REASSESSMENT NOTICE, HAS TO APPLY HIS MIND AND FORM AN OPINION. THE MERE APPENDING OF THE EXPRESSION APPROVED SAYS NOTHING. IT IS NOT A S IF THE CIT HAS TO RECORD ELABORATE REASONS FOR AGREEING WITH THE NOTING PUT UP. AT THE SAME TIME, SATISFACTION HAS TO BE RECORDED OF THE GIVEN CASE W HICH CAN BE REFLECTED IN THE BRIEFEST POSSIBLE MANNER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EXERCISE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN RITUALISTIC AND FORMAL RATHER THAN MEANIN GFUL, WHICH IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE SAFEGUARD OF AN APPROVAL BY A HIG HER RANKING OFFICER. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE FIND INGS BY THE ITAT CANNOT BE DISTURBED. WE ALSO DRAW STRENGTH FROM THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. GOYANKA LIME & CHEMICALS LTD. (2015) 231 TAXMAN 007 3 (MP) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHILE ACCORDING SANCTION, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX HAS ONLY RECORDED SO YES, I AM SATISFIED IF THE CASE IN HAND IS ANALYSED ON THE BASIS OF THE AF ORESAID PRINCIPLE, THE ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 28 MECHANICAL WAY OF RECORDING SATISFACTION BY THE JOI NT COMMISSIONER, WHICH ACCORDS SANCTION FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 47, IS CLEARLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND WE FIND THAT ON SUCH CONSIDERATIO N BOTH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE INTERFERED INTO THE MATTER. IN DOI NG SO, NO ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED WARRANTING RECONSIDERATION. 20. THE LD. A/R HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON THE APPROVAL OF THE PR. CIT PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 7-8 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND A LSO FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD PLACED BEFORE US, WE FOUND THAT H E HAS GIVEN ONE CONSOLIDATED APPROVAL OF 56 DIFFERENT ASSESSEES IN ONE SHOT THROUGH ONE LETTER DATED 29.03.2016 WHICH IS EVEN NOT SIGNED BY HIM BUT SIGNED BY ITO (T&J), WHO IS NOT A COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO GIVE AND SIGNED THE APPROVAL LETTER, WHICH SHOWS HOW THE PR. CIT HAS ACTED IN VE RY FORMAL WAY. WHEN WE EXAMINED OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, IT IS GATHERE D THAT THE APPROVAL WAS IN PHOTOCOPY AND NOT IN ORIGINAL OR THERE WAS N O ORIGINAL LETTER OR DOCUMENTS OF APPROVAL. FURTHER THE NAME OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS AT SR. 46 OUT OF 56 ASSESSEE'S AND EVEN THERE WAS NO TICK ON THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPROVAL LIST, WHICH CREATES A DOUBT THAT THE A PPROVAL HAS BEEN RECEIVED BEFORE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AS THE APPROVAL LETTER LYING ON THE FILE AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S 148 OR NOT BEFORE OR ATTACHED WITH THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND MAY REACH IN T HE OFFICE OF THE AO AFTER 31.03.2016. THUS, IN OUR VIEW, APPROVAL U/S 1 51 CANNOT BE GIVEN OF ALL ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 29 THE 56 ASSESSEE'S IN A SINGLE DOCUMENTS, AS ALL AS SESSEE'S ARE THE INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE ALSO THE REASON RECORDED A RE DIFFERENT IN EACH CASE AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THERE SHALL BE SAM E REASONS. LOOKING TO THESE FACTS AND RECORD IT IS ALSO HELD THAT THE PRO CEDURES AND WAY OF APPROVAL AND SATISFACTION IS NOT PROPER. HERE AO IN ITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 R.W.S. 148 ON BASIS OF INFORMATION FURNISH ED AND CIT GAVE APPROVAL WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND IN SLIPSHOD MANNER. AS AP PROVAL/SANCTION GIVEN BY CIT WAS WITHOUT RECORDING HIS OWN INDEPENDENT SA TISFACTION AS NOTED ABOVE, THEREFORE THE REOPENING WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS PER ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND IRREGULARITIES NOTED. THERE WERE CLEAR IRREGULARITIES AND VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION OF SEC. 151 OF THE A CT AND VERY FOUNDATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS NOT AS PER L AW. THEN IN THAT EVENTUALITY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUANCE N OTICE 148 OF THE ACT AND ALL THE CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY T HE LD. DR ARE NOT TENABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF PRESENT C ASE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS QUA THE ISSUE UNDER CON SIDERATION, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR, THEREFORE, WE QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ SH. SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA VS ITO 30 21. ONCE, WE QUASH THE PROCEEDING U/S 147 OF THE A CT, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED I N THIS APPEAL. 22. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH SEPTEMEBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO LANHI XLKA (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 15/09/2021 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD-2(4), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 867 & 869/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR