Hajee Hameed , Mangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income TAx Circle-2(1), Mangalore

ITA 983/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2368 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINOD SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC - B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 983 TO 985 / BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEA RS : 20 0 1 - 02, 2002 - 03, 2004 - 05 SHRI. HAJEE HAMEED, 16-1-57/6, MANGALORE DRIVING SCHOOL, SHAH COMPLEX, BENDOORWELL, MANGALORE. PAN : AA NPN 2334 K VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI . V. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI. VINOD SHARMA, J CIT DATE OF HEARING : 06 . 0 8 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 . 0 8 .201 8 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ON COMMON GROUNDS EXCEPT THE DIFFERENCE IN QUANTUM. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, I EXTRACT THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL NO. 983/BANG/2018 AS UNDER: GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.983/BANG/2018 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2.1 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED ONCE ON CERTAIN REASONS RECORDED AND THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ITA NOS. 983 TO 985/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 8 HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF SCRUTINY AND THAT THERE ARE NO FRESH MATERIALS COMING IN THE HANDS OF THE A.O. AFTER HE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TRIGGERING TO INDUCE THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT, FOR THE SECOND TIME ON 21/11/2013 AND THE STATE OF AFFAIRS ON THAT DATE ALONE HAD TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME TO ISSUE THE NOTICE FOR THE SECOND TIME AND CONSEQUENTLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FRESH MATERIALS THE NOTICE ISSUED FOR THE SECOND TIME IS BAD IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY REASSESSMENT REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED. 2.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE ONCE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE THE APPELLANT IS ASSESSED TO TAX AND MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT WAS SET-ASIDE ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEFAULT OF THE A.O. TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW WOULD NOT RENDER THE INCOME ASSESSED WITH THE CHARACTER OF ESCAPING INCOME AND THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE FRESH NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT, ARE ILLEGAL AND REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED. 2.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT HAD DIRECTED EARLIER IN ITS ORDER DATED 28/09/2011 THAT THE A.O. SHOULD RECORD THE REASONS FIRST AND CALL UPON THE APPELLANT TO FILE OBJECTIONS AND DISPOSE OFF THE SAME, WHICH HE FAILED TO DO AND THEREFORE, THE HON'BLE CIT[A] HAD CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE A.O. TO ONCE AGAIN RECORD SOME REASONS ENDLESSLY AND PASS AND ORDER AND RELYING UPON THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT EARLIER WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN EFFECT BY HIM EARLIER AND WHICH IS CANCELLED BY THE HON'BLE CIT[A] CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER PASSED NOW IS ILLEGAL AND LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED, AS THE HON'BLE CIT[A] HAS NO POWER TO DO SO. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT[A] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING A SUM OF RS.40,000/- U/S.69C OF THE ACT, BEING THE PAYMENT MADE TO ONE MRS. DIANA ALBUQUERQUE FROM OUT THE FUNDS OF THE APPELLANT BY UNREASONABLY REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT ABOUT THE SOURCES FROM WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY EARLIER CIT[A] AND DELETED UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 4.1 THE LEARNED CIT[A] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT OF A SUM OF RS.11,32,200/- SAID TO BE THE PEAK IN THE S.B. A/C.NO.16978 AT CANARA BANK BY REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF THE EARLIER CIT[A]. 4.2 THE LEARNED CIT[A] FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LEARNED A.O. HAVING FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ITA NOS. 983 TO 985/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 8 DEALING IN SECOND HAND VEHICLES, WHICH INVOLVES RECEIPT OF ADVANCES AND PRICE FROM THE PURCHASERS AND PAYING THE SAME TO THE SELLER AND IN THE INTERREGNUM, THE APPELLANT DEPOSITED THE MONEY FOR SAFE CUSTODY IN THE BANK, SINCE HE STAYED IN A VILLAGE AND THIS FACTUAL EXPLANATION TESTED ON THE ANVIL OF PROBABILITIES OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED WHILE DEALING WITH THE ADDITION BY CIT[A] EARLIER AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE. 4.3 THE REJECTION OF THIS EXPLANATION, WHICH ACCORDS WITH ALL THE PROBABILITIES AND THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES IS ONLY OUT OF SUSPICION AND SURMISE, ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS AND ACCORDINGLY, REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 4.4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE PEAK AMOUNT REQUIRES TO BE TELESCOPED WITH THE INCOME OF RS.16,000/- REPORTED ON ESTIMATE BASIS AS BROKERAGE COMMISSION AS WELL AS SIMILAR SUCH PEAKS IN EARLIER YEARS AS WELL AS THE OTHER ADDITIONS AND THE ADDITION SUSTAINED OF RS.40,000/- IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT MADE TO ONE MRS. DIANA ALBUQUERQUE DEALT IN GROUND NO.3 ABOVE. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER WITH THE HON'BLE CCIT/DG, THE APPELLANT DENIES HIMSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST U/S.234-A AND 234B OF THE ACT, WHICH UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND THE LEVY DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 5.1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS PAID THE TAXES PURSUANT TO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THESE TAXES BECOMES REFUNDABLE UPON THE CANCELLATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT AS WELL AS THE HON'BLE CIT[A] AND SUCH AMOUNTS SHOULD BE TAKEN CREDIT TO WHILE CALCULATING THE TAX PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE SECOND NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT, HAVING REGARD TO THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PRANNOY REPORTED IN 309 ITR 231 AND ALSO IN TERMS OF THE BOARD CIRCULAR NO.2/2015 DATED 10/02/2015 ON THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST U/S.234A AND 234B OF THE ACT, WHERE THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A AND 234B IS ONLY COMPENSATORY. 6. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDERED AND THE APPELLANT MAY BE AWARDED COSTS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND ALSO ORDER FOR THE REFUND OF THE INSTITUTION FEES AS DART OF THE COSTS. ITA NOS. 983 TO 985/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 8 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT SINCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE, THE SAME SHOULD BE ADMITTED. THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: 1. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143[3] RWS 147 RWS 150[1] OF THE ACT DATED 19/02/2015 IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB-INITIO IN AS MUCH AS THE NOTICE U/S 147 OF THE ACT DATED 21/11/2013 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED A.O. FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT TRANSGRESSES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 149 OF THE ACT SINCE THE SAID NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOUNDED ON THE INVALID NOTICE U/S. 147 OF THE ACT, IS VOID AB- INITIO AND THE SAME REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED. 2. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 150[1] OF THE ACT THAT HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO AND INVOKED IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S. 147 OF THE ACT DATED 21/11/2013, HAVE NO APPLICATION UNDER THE FACT AND IN THE 3. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND EVEN IF THE SAME WERE CONSIDERED AS APPLICABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LEARNED CIT[A] IN THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 09/10/2012, THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 147 OF THE ACT FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS STILL BARRED BY LIMITATION HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 150[2] OF THE ACT THAT LIMITS THE SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 150[1] OF THE ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 4. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDERED. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO CERTAIN FACTS WHICH LEADS TO THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED. THROUGH THESE ORIGINAL GROUNDS AND THE GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ISSUANCE OF FRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED CONSEQUENT THERETO. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED IN TIME. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, IT WAS FILED ON 02.05.2002, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON 31.03.2003 AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON 02.09.2004. THESE ASSESSMENTS WERE REOPENED BY ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER ITA NOS. 983 TO 985/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 8 SECTION 148 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ON 28.02.2008, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON 20.02.2008 AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON 15.02.2008. IN RESPONSE THERETO, VIDE LETTER DATED 20.03.2008, THE AO WAS INFORMED THAT RETURN FILED BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SOUGHT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. VIDE ORDER DATED 20.07.2008, THE REASONS FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENT WERE FURNISHED AND THE ASSESSEE FILED THE OBJECTIONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ON 20.08.2008. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT BY THE AO WITHOUT DISPOSING OFF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. 4. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BY FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 31.03.2009. APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OFF BY THE CIT(A). AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISPOSED OFF ALL THESE APPEALS VIDE ORDER DATED 28.09.2011 AND DIRECTED THE AO TO DISPOSE OFF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF REOPENING BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FIRST AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENT THERETO THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 03.11.2011 DISPOSED OFF THE OBJECTIONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT HE DID NOT PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 05.02.2011. THE CIT(A) DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL VIDE COMMON ORDER DATED 09.10.2012 AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO ISSUE A FRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE CASE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND HE ACCORDINGLY ANNULLED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE AO. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO ISSUED A FRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 21.11.2013 CALLING THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND THE SAME WERE ALSO FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED OBJECTION BEFORE THE AO ON 23.01.2014. NOW THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT AO HAS NOT PASSED AN ORDER CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THEREFORE, THE AO CANNOT ITA NOS. 983 TO 985/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 8 FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ALSO NOT ISSUED IN TIME. THEREFORE, THIS NOTICE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE INVITED MY ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(2)(A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ORDER CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE HIGHER FORUM CAN BE PASSED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME-TAX. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECEIVED IN OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2011 AS THE AO HAS PASSED AN ORDER DISPOSING OFF THE OBJECTIONS ON 03.11.2011. THEREFORE, NO ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE PASSED NOW. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 21.11.2013 WHICH IS ALSO TIME BARRED AS ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2001, 2002 AND 2003. 5. THE LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) AND ALSO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE AO, AS THE ORDER OF CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED AND HAS ATTAINED THE FINALITY. 6. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I FIND THAT VIDE ORDER DATED 20.08.2011, THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OFF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT TO REOPENING BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 FIRST AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE CASE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ADJUDICATE ANY OTHER GROUNDS RAISED ON MERIT, AS THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE AO TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. BUT THE AO DID NOT PASS ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE HAS SIMPLY DISPOSED OFF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) WITHOUT LOOKING TO THE ORDER OF ITA NOS. 983 TO 985/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 8 THE TRIBUNAL PROPERLY HAS ISSUED THE DIRECTIONS TO THE AO TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AFRESH AND TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) DATED 09.10.2012 IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE: HOWEVER, AS COULD BE SEEN, THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IS CLEAR WHEREIN IT IS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THAT THE AO SHOULD FIRST ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE CASE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. THIS DIRECTION IS ISSUED SINCE THE AO INITIALLY RECORDED THE REASONS AND SUPPLIED THE SAME TO THE APPELLANT BUT DID NOT DISPOSE THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. HENCE I FIND STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THIS IS NOT IN LINE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT. HENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ANNULLED IN ALL THESE YEARS WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS THE ORDER AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT. 7. THE TRIBUNAL NEVER ISSUED SUCH TYPE OF DIRECTION AND I AM UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND FROM WHERE THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT TRIBUNAL ISSUED SUCH TYPE OF DIRECTION. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS NOT CHALLENGED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, IT ATTAINED THE FINALITY. BUT IN ANY CASE, THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE SPIRIT AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. SUCH TYPE OF DIRECTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) AS THERE WAS NO REFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ISSUING SUCH TYPE OF DIRECTION. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS NOT PROPERLY ISSUED. IF I CONSIDER IT TO BE THE FRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, IT IS ALSO TIME BARRED. THEREFORE, I HAVE NO HESITATION OF HOLDING NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 AS INVALID. THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT FRAMED CONSEQUENT THERETO IS ALSO INVALID ASSESSMENT. THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO WAS ONLY TO PASS ORDER ON MERIT CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HE DID NOT DO. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO BY ISSUING INVALID NOTICE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. ACCORDINGLY, I ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT. ITA NOS. 983 TO 985/BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 8 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST AUGUST, 2018. SD/- SD/- BANGALORE. DATED: 31 ST AUGUST, 2018. /NS/* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. DR 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE. ( A. K. GARODIA ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER