DCIT, New Delhi v. M/s Citi Financial Consumer Finance (I) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1536/DEL/2011 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 153620114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AABCA3223B
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1536/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s)
Appellant DCIT, New Delhi
Respondent M/s Citi Financial Consumer Finance (I) Ltd., New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 24-02-2012
Next Hearing Date 24-02-2012
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 29-03-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI B BENC H BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA AM ITA NO.1536/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-03 DEPUTY C.I.T. CIRCLE 3(1) NEW DELHI V/S . M/S CITY FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD. 3 LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE PUSHP VIHAR NEW DELHI [PAN :AABCA 3223B] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY S/SHRI C.S. AGGARWAL & RAVI MALL ARS REVENUE BY S/SHRI V.K. SAKSENA & PRADEEP KUMAR DR S DATE OF HEARING 24-02-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29-02-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 29 TH MARCH 2011 BY THE REVENUE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 24 TH JANUARY 2011 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-VI NEW DELHI RAI SES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS`:- 1) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ANNULLING THE ORDER U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT WHILE HOLDING INVALID THE REOPENING U/S 147 IGNORING THAT WHERE TRANSACTION ITSELF ON THE BASI S OF SUBSEQUENT INFORMATION IS FOUND TO BE BOGUS TRANSACTION MERE DISCLOSURE OF THAT TRANSACTION AT TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A DISCLOSURE OF THE TRUE AND FULL FA CTS IN THE CASE AND I.T.O. WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION TO REOP EN CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT IN SUCH A CASE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL VS. I.T.O. (1993) 203 ITR 456 (S.C.); BAWA ABHAI SINGH VS. DCIT 253 ITA N O.1536 /DEL./2011 2 I.T.R. 83 (DEL); 142 CTE(DELHI) 272 & 225 ITR 496; RAM PRASAD VS. I.T.O. (1995) 82 TAXMAN 199(ALL). 2) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIG HT TO AMEND MODIFY ALTER ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) O F APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL FACTS IN BRIEF AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT RETURN FILED ON 31.03.2002 BY THE ASSESSEE A FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH T HE SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE ACT) ISSUED ON 13.10.2003. THE AFORESAID RETURN WAS REVISED ON 31 .03.2004 DECLARING INCOME OF ` `12 10 34 127/-.SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED ON 25.02.2005 ON AN INCOME OF ` ` 28 54 17 720/-. LATER THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O. IN SHORT) RECORDED THE FOLLOWING REASONS IN WRITING FOR REO PENING THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON 25 TH FEBRUARY 2005: THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31.10. 2002. LATER ON THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ON 31.03.2004 AT AN INCOME OF ` ` 12 10 34 127/- AND ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS PASSED ON 25.02.2005 AT ASSESSED INCOME OF ` ` 28 54 17 720/- . SECTION 32 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION OF BUILDINGS MACHINERY PLANT OR FURN ITURE BEING TANGIBLE ASSETS OWNED WHOLLY OR PARTLY BY THE ASSE SSEE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION THE FOLLOWING DEDUCTIONS SHALL BE ALLOWED. IN CASE OF ANY BLOCK OF ASSETS SUCH PERCENTAGE ON THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE THEREOF AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. FURTHER AS PER DEPRECIATION TABLE CO MPUTERS INCLUDING COMPUTERS SOFTWARE DEPRECIATION @60% IS ALLOWED UN DER THE ACT AND NOT FOR THE ACCESSORIES/PERIPHERALS. THE PERUSAL OF ASSTT. RECORDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2002- 03 REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS AVAILED DE PRECIATION @60% ON ADDITIONS OF FIXED ASSETS DURING THE YEAR O N ALL ITEMS INCLUDING UPS CABLES CD WRITERS ETC. BESIDES COMP UTER AND SOFTWARE THAT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS OTHER ITEMS AS COMPUTER PERIPHERALS/ACCESSORIES. THE ITEMS IN THE LIST OF ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS EXCEPT COMPUTERS AND SOFTWARE FALL IN THE CA TEGORY OF PART OF ITA N O.1536 /DEL./2011 3 PLANT AND MACHINERY AND DEPRECIATION ON THESE ITEMS ARE TO BE ALLOWED @25%/12.50%(ASSETS USED LESS THAN 180 DAYS) . THIS HAS RESULTED IN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF ` ` `11 65 426/-. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME TO THE TUNE OF ` 11 65 426/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BECAUSE OF FAILURE ON PART OF ASSESSEE T O DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSTT. AND H ENCE NOTICE U/S 148 IS HEREBY ISSUED FOR REOPENING U/S 147 OF THE I .T. ACT. 2.1 ACCORDINGLY A NOTICE DATED 30.03.2009 WAS ISS UED U/S148 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VIDE LET TER DATED 16.11.2009 THAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED ON 31 ST MARCH 2004 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER REJECTING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTI ONS VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.2009 THE AO RESTRICTED THE CLAIM FOR DEPRECI ATION ON COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS @25% INSTEAD OF 60% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTING IN DISALLOWANCE OF ` 11 65 426/-. ACCORDINGLY INCOME WAS REASSESSED AT ` ` 32 12 35 890/- VIDE ORDER DATED 3 RD DECEMBER 2009. 3. ON APPEAL THE ASSESSEE QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON 25.02.2005 ON THE GROUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS IN RELATION TO THEIR CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AND THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT ANY M ATERIAL FACTS. SINCE THERE WAS NO LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE PLEADED. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT(A) QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE REFERRI NG TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. 187 TAXMAN 312 AND SATNAM OVERSEAS LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT 188 TAXMAN 172 IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED AR AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 O F THE ACT ON THE ITA N O.1536 /DEL./2011 4 GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION A T A HIGHER RATE OF 60% ON COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS. IN THIS CASE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SAME MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL PROCEED INGS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ANY FRESH MATERI AL OR INFORMATION HAS COME TO HIS NOTICE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 25.02.2005 AND THE SAME RECORDS WERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AT THAT TIME. TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW AT A LATER STAGE ON THE BASIS OF SAME MATERIAL IS MERELY A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN VARIOUS DECISIONS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 7 CANNOT BE INVOKED ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. 12 3 TAXMAN 433 HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS OPINED AS UNDER: WE ALSO CANNOT ACCEPT SUBMISSION OF MR. JOLLY TO T HE EFFECT THAT ONLY BECAUSE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DETAILED REAS ONS HAVE NOT BEEN RECORDED ON ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIALS ON THE R ECORD BY ITSELF MAY JUSTIFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INITIATE A PRO CEEDING U/S 147. THE SAID SUBMISSION IS FALLACIOUS. AN ORDER OF ASS ESSMENT CANNOT BE PASSED EITHER IN TERMS OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC TION 143 OR SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143. WHEN A REGULAR ORDER O F ASSESSMENT IS PASSED IN TERMS OF THE SAID SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECT ION 143 A PRESUMPTION CANNOT BE RAISED THAT SUCH AN ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON APPLICATION OF MIND. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT A PR ESUMPTION CAN ALSO BE RAISED TO THE EFFECT THAT IN TERMS OF CLAUS E (E) OF SECTION 114 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT THE JUDICIAL AND OFF ICIAL ACTS HAVE BEEN REGULARLY PERFORMED. IF IT BE HELD THAT AN OR DER WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED PURPORTEDLY WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND WOULD ITSELF CONFER JURISDICTION UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO R EOPEN THE PROCEEDING WITHOUT ANYTHING FURTHER THE SAME WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING PREMIUM TO AN AUTHORITY EXERCISING QUASI-JUD ICIAL FUNCTION TO TAKE BENEFIT OF ITS OWN WRONG. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. 187 TAXMAN 312 HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: ONE NEEDS TO GIVE A SCHEMATIC INTERPRETATION TO TH E WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE FAILING WHICH WE ARE AFRAID SECTION 1 47 WOULD GIVE ARBITRARY POWERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN ASSESSMENTS ITA N O.1536 /DEL./2011 5 ON THE BASIS OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH CAN NOT BE PER SE REASON TO REOPEN. WE MUST ALSO KEEP IN MIND THE CO NCEPTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POWER TO REVIEW AND POWER TO REA SSESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW HE HAS TH E POWER TO REASSESS. BUT ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE BASED ON FULFIL LMENT OF CERTAIN PRECONDITION AND IF THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINI ON IS REMOVED AS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT THEN IN THE GARB OF RE- OPENING THE ASSESSMENT REVIEW WOULD TAKE PLACE. O NE MUST TREAT THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINION AS AN INBUILT TE ST TO CHECK ABUSE OF POWER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE CASE OF SATNAM OVERSEAS LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT 188 TAXMAN 172 IT HAS BEEN HELD BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT SINCE REASONS GIVEN FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENT SIMPLY RELIED UPON RECORD WHICH WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE IMPUGNED NOTICES WERE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. I FURTHER FIND THAT THE PRESENT CASE FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) AND THE CASE HAS BEEN REOPENED AFTER THE EXP IRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOWHERE ESTABLISHED THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BECAUSE OF FAILURE ON THE PART O F THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECE SSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT. RATHER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LOOKING INTO THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION I FIN D THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 4 YEAR S WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THE ASSESSEES FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE MATERIAL FACTS AND BY MERELY USING THE SAME MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVA ILABLE ON RECORD AND WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMEN T IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 147. HENCE THE REOPENING IN THIS CASE IS HELD TO BE INVALID. CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 STANDS ANNULLED. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A O. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE CARRYING US THRO UGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PAGE 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS O F THE LD. CIT(A). ITA N O.1536 /DEL./2011 6 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE FACTS NARRATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS CASE WAS INITIALLY COMPLETED ON 25.2.2005 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON AN INCOME OF ` 28 54 17 720/-AND CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER ACCESSORIES& PERIPHERALS @60% WAS ALLOWED AS SUCH. THEREAFTER THE SAID ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED AFTER THE E XPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WITH THE ISSUE OF A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 30.3.2009 ON THE GROUND THAT DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERAL S WAS ADMISSIBLE AT NORMAL RATES AND NOT @60% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO MATERIAL FACTS IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER ACCESS ORIES AND PERIPHERALS IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED IN THE AFORESAID REASONS RECORDED B Y THE AO NOR THE LD. DR ASCRIBED ANY SUCH FAILURE TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THOUGH IN THE REASONS RECORDED IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE THE MATERIAL FAC TS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT THE REASONS DO NOT INDICATE WHY AND HOW THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS IN RELATION TO CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE MADE DISCLOSUR E OF FACTS RELATING TO CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AS PER DETAILS PLACED ON PAGE 1 TO 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE AFORESAID REAS ONS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO EVEN AT THE TIME OF FINALIZING THE INIT IAL ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 25.2.2005. ON TH E BASIS OF SAME MATERIAL IF THE AO TAKES A DIFFERENT VIEW SUBSEQUE NTLY AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THA T WOULD NOT CONFER ANY JURISDICTION ON THE AO TO ISSUE NOTICE U /S 148 OF THE ACT. THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF SECTION 147 AS SUBSTITUTED WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1 1989 AS ALSO SECTIONS 148 TO 152 ARE SUBS TANTIALLY DIFFERENT ITA N O.1536 /DEL./2011 7 FROM THE PROVISIONS AS THEY STOOD PRIOR TO SUCH SUB STITUTION. UNDER THE OLD PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 SEPARATE CLAUSES (A) AND (B) LAID DOWN THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT FOR THE PAST ASSESSMENT YEARS COULD BE ASSESSED OR REASSESSED. TO CONFER JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147(A) TWO CONDI TIONS WERE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED- FIRSTLY THE AO MUST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME PROFITS OR GAINS CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND SECONDLY HE MUST ALSO HAVE REASON T O BELIEVE THAT SUCH ESCAPEMENT OCCURRED DUE TO REASON OF EITHER OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE TAXPAYER TO DISCLOSE FUL LY OR TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT OF THAT YEAR. BOTH THESE CONDITIONS WERE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO BE SATISFIE D BEFORE THE AO COULD HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 148 READ WITH SECTION 147(A).BUT UNDER THE SUBSTITUTED SECTION 14 7 EXISTENCE OF ONLY THE FIRST CONDITION SUFFICES. IN OTHER WORDS I F THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WHATEVER REASON HAS REASON TO BELIEVE T HAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IT CONFERS JURISDICTION TO REOPE N THE ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER BOTH THE CONDITIONS MUST BE FU LFILLED IF THE CASE FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PROVISO TO SECTI ON 147. SINCE IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION NOTICE U/S 148 HAD BEEN I SSUED ONLY ON 30.3.2009 THAT IS AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR APPARENTLY THE ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS ANY FAILU RE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERI AL FACTS? NO SUCH FAILURE IS EITHER EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OR THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO NOR HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BEFORE US BY THE LD. DR. INDISPUTABLY THE AO CHOSE TO REOPEN THE ASSESS MENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTER RECORDING REA SONS WHEREIN NO SUCH FAILURE AS HAS BEEN ENVISAGED IN PROVISO TO S EC. 147 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN RELATIO N TO CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. IN RAKESH AGGARWAL V. ASST. CIT [1997 ] 225 ITR 496 ITA N O.1536 /DEL./2011 8 HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE P ROVISO TO SECTION 147 NOTICE FOR REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 WOUL D BE ILLEGAL IF ISSUED MORE THAN FOUR YEARS AFTER THE END OF THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS FAILURE IS ASCRIBED TO THE A SSESSEE IN DISCLOSING FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECES SARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT. HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT WHILE ADJUD ICATING A SIMILAR ISSUE HELD IN SHREE THARAD JAIN YUVAK MANDAL V. ITO [2000] 242 ITR 612 AS UNDER: A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION GOES TO SHOW T HAT UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 THE FOUNDATION OF CONFERRIN G JURISDICTION ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INC OME FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR BEYOND THE END OF FOUR YEARS FROM T HE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR MUST BE OMISSION OR FAILUR E ON THE PART OF AN ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FA CTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT YEAR AND THAT THE INCOME-TAX OF FICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ES CAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THAT YEAR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUC H OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TAKING ACTION FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR ANY YEAR AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE SCOPE OF THE ASSESSEE'S DUTY TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT IN THE CONT EXT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX A CT 1922 HAS BEEN SUCCINCTLY STATED BY THE SUPREME COURT BY THEI R LORDSHIPS IN CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO. LTD. V. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 . THE COURT OBSERVED: 'THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE DUTY OF DISCLOSING ALL THE PRIMARY FACTS RELEVANT TO THE DECISION OF THE QUESTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY LIES ON THE ASSESSEE.' THE COURT FURTHER SAID: 'DOES THE DUTY HOWEVER EXTEND BEYOND THE FULL AND TRUTHFUL DISCLOSURE OF ALL PRIMARY FACTS? IN OUR OPINION THE ANSWER TO TH IS QUESTION MUST BE IN THE NEGATIVE. ONCE ALL THE PRIMARY FACTS ARE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HE REQUIRES NO FURTHER ASSISTANCE BY WAY OF DISCLOSURE. IT IS FOR HIM TO DECIDE WHAT INFERENCES OF FACTS CAN BE REASO NABLY DRAWN AND WHAT LEGAL INFERENCES HAVE ULTIMATELY TO BE DRAWN. IT IS NOT FOR SOMEBODY ELSE- FAR LESS THE ASSESSEE-TO TELL THE ASSESSING AUTHORI TY WHAT INFERENCES WHETHER OF FACTS OR LAW SHOULD BE DRAWN.' ITA N O.1536 /DEL./2011 9 5.1 AGAIN IN THE CASE OF PATIDAR OIL CAKE INDUSTR IES VS. DCIT 270 ITR 347(GUJ) HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT HELD IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENTS H AVE BEEN SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED AFTER A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE E ND OF EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 147 OF THE ACT MANDATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE VES TED WITH THE JURISDICTION TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS O NLY IN CASE THERE IS ANY OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR TH E ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SUCH FAILURE SHOULD RE SULT IN INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX ESCAPING ASSESSMENT. ON A PLAIN R EADING OF THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS AND THE REASONS RECORDED IT B ECOMES CLEAR THAT THERE CANNOT BE ASCRIBED ANY FAILURE OR OMISSI ON TO THE PETITIONER SO AS TO VEST THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENTS WHICH WERE ALREADY FINALISED . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1986-87 19 87-88 AND 1988-89 IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE INITIATIO N BY ISSUANCE OF IMPUGNED NOTICES IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND THE PREREQUISITE CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY SECTION 147 O F THE ACT ARE NOT FULFILLED THERE IS NO CASE MADE OUT FOR UPHOLDING THE PROPOSED REASSESSMENT. THE NOTICES FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS AR E THEREFORE BAD IN LAW AND ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. 5.2 IN THE CASE OF DEVIDAYAL ROLLING MILLS & A NOTHER VS. Y.R.SAINI ACIT 285 ITR 514 HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T HELD THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED BEYOND FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE REVENUE MUST ESTABLISH THAT TH ERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND T RULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSMENT. 5.3 IN THE CASE OF MERCURY TRAVELS LTD. VS. DCIT & ANOTHER 258 ITR 533(CAL.) HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS OF THE CASE CONCLUDED THAT NO INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCA PED ASSESSMENT FOR THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS DUE TO FAILUR E OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL F ACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT. ITA N O.1536 /DEL./2011 10 5.4 IN PRIYANKA CARBON & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES ( P) LTD. VS. DCIT (2008) 15 DTR (GUJ.) 31 HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD T HAT WHEN FACTUAL DATA WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSES SMENT ON THE SAME VERY MATERIAL IF THE AO TAKES A DIFFERENT VIE W SUBSEQUENTLY AND THAT TOO AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE EN D OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THAT WOULD NOT CONFER ANY JURISDIC TION ON THE AO TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. SIMILAR VIEW WAS T AKEN IN ACIT VS. JAGDISHBHAI NANUBHAI TEKRAWALA (2008) 12 DTR (GUJ) 270 5.5 IN VARELI WEAVERS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (1999) 240 ITR 77 (GUJ) ALSO NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 READ WITH SECTION 14 7 OF THE ACT WERE QUASHED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THERE BEING NO W HISPER IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO ABOUT FAILURE ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULLY ALL MATERIAL F ACTS . 5.6 IN CIT VS. DCM LTD. (2009) 24 DTR(DEL.) 72 H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FA ILED TO FILE ITS RETURN OR THAT IT HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS IN ITS RETURN NOR WAS THERE ANY ALLEGATION B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE F ULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME NOR EVEN THE RE WAS ANY ALLEGATION REGARDING ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES HONBLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THAT FINDINGS OF THE TRIB UNAL THAT NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT HAVING BEEN ISSUED AFTER FOUR Y EARS THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT VALID. 5.7 IN CIT & ANOTHER VS. FORAMER FRANCE 264 ITR 566 (SC) HONBLE APEX COURT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CONCLUDING THAT WHEN THERE WAS ADMITTEDLY NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN OR TO DISCLOS E FULLY AND TRULY ITA N O.1536 /DEL./2011 11 ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT TH E PROVISO TO THE NEW SECTION 147 OF THE ACT SQUARELY APPLIED AND TH E IMPUGNED NOTICES WERE BARRED BY LIMITATION MENTIONED IN THE PROVISO. 5.8 IN SUPREME TRAVELS (P) LTD. VS. DCIT 182 TAXMAN 216(BOM.) HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ONLY IF THE INGRE DIENTS OF SECTION 147 ARE FULFILLED. 5.9 IN GUJARAT CARBON AND INDUSTRIAL LTD. VS. JT. CIT [2008] 307 ITR 271 (GUJ) HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE ALL MAT ERIAL FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION CONC LUDED THAT THE IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER S. 148 ISSUED BEYOND A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED . 5.10 LIKEWISE IN GUJRAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD. VS . DCIT [2009] 319 ITR 282 (GUJ) HONBLE HIGH COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING MADE FULL DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS IN TH E RETURN WHICH WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SEVERAL ENCLOSURES ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE REOPENED BEYOND FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR THE REASON THAT CERTAIN INCOME HAS BEEN WRONGLY ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS INSTEAD OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFE SSION. 5.11 IN NIKHIL K KOTAK VS. MAHESH KUMAR AO [2009] 319 ITR 445 (GUJ) ALSO IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY A VERMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT THERE WAS ANY OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ASSES SMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER S. 148 ISSUED BEYON D A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. ITA N O.1536 /DEL./2011 12 5.12 IN CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. VS. DY. CIT [2010] 41 DTR 145 (GUJ) HONBLE HIGH COURT CONCLUDED THAT IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY AVERMENT IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR REOP ENING THE ASSESSMENT THAT THE PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRU LY ANY MATERIAL FACT NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR ANY NEW MATERIAL OR FACTS COMING TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO LEADING TO THE CONCL USION THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT THE INGREDIENTS OF THE PROVISO TO S. 147 ARE NOT SATISFIED AND THEREFORE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 147 INI TIATED PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED NOTICE AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CANNO T BE SUSTAINED. 5.13 IN MIHIR TEXTILES LTD. VS. JT. CIT [2010] 4 3 DTR 11 (GUJ) HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE PETITIONER HAVING SUBMITTED AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS P&L A/C AND BALANCE SHE ET ALONG WITH NOTES AND ALSO MADE A SPECIFIC DISCLOSURE IN THE FORM OF A NOTE RE GARDING TRANSFER OF ITS UNDERTAKING IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF NOT MAKING FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE AND THEREFORE NOTICE UNDER S. 148 ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. 5.14 SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN IN DECISION DATED 28. 11.2011 IN CIT VS. PUROLATOR INDIA LIMITED IN ITA NO. 489/DEL./2011 AN D DECISION DATED 1.12.2011 IN BLB LIMITED VS. ACIT IN WPC 6884/2010 JSRS UDYOG L IMITED & ANOTHER VS. ITO 313 ITR 321(DEL.);WEL INTERTRADE PRIVATE LIMITE D VS. ITO 308 ITR 22(DEL.) AND IN A RECENT DECISION DATED 11.11.2011 IN ITA NO .87 /2010 IN ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT BY THE HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 5.15 IN HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. 308 ITR 38 (DEL.) HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT INTER ALIA CONC LUDED AS UNDER: 20. IN THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER THERE IS NO WHISPER WHAT TO SPEAK OF ANY ALLEGATION THAT THE PETITIONER HAD FA ILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT AND THAT BE CAUSE OF THIS FAILURE THERE ITA N O.1536 /DEL./2011 13 HAS BEEN AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. MERELY HAVING A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REOPEN ASSESSMENTS BEYOND THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD INDICATED A BOVE. THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT MUST ALSO BE OCCASIONED BY T HE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY. THIS IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR OVERCOMING THE BAR SET UP BY THE PROV ISO TO SECTION 147. IF THIS CONDITION IS NOT SATISFIED THE BAR WOULD OPERATE A ND NO ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 COULD BE TAKEN. WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED ABOVE THA T THE REASONS SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY SUCH ALLEGATION . CONSEQUENTLY ONE OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR REMOVING THE BAR AGAINST T AKING ACTION AFTER THE SAID FOUR YEAR PERIOD REMAINS UNFULFILLED. IN OUR RECENT DECI SION IN WEL INTERTRADE (P.) LTD.' 308 ITR 33(DEL.) WE HAD AGREED WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DULI CHAND SINGHA NIA 269 ITR 192 THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ALLEGATION IN THE REASONS RECORDED TH AT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME HAD OCCURRED BY REASON OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF TH E ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSME NT ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 147 BEYOND THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD WOULD BE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION. REITERATING OUR VIEWPOINT WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE DATED 29-3- 2004 UNDER SECTION 148 BASED ON THE RECORDED REASON S AS SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS THE CONSEQUENT ORDER DATED 2- 3-2005 ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS NO ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 COULD BE TAKEN BEYON D THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED ABOVE . 5.16 NOW ADVERTING TO DECISIONS RELIED UPON IN T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. FIRST SUCH CASE IS PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL VS. I.T.O. (1993) 203 ITR 456 (S.C.) WHEREIN HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT THE AO RIGHTLY INITIATED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF SUBSEQUENT INFORMATION WHICH WAS SPECIFIC RELEVANT AND RELIABLE AND AFTER RECORDIN G THE REASONS FOR THE FORMATION OF HIS OWN BELIEF THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE MATERIAL FACTS TRULY AND FULLY AN D THEREFORE INCOME CHARGE ABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN RAKESH AGGARWAL ( LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI R. S. AGGARWAL) 142 CTR(DELHI) 272 REOPENING OF ASSE SSMENT FOR THE AYS 1989- 90 & 1990-91 WAS WITHIN THE FOUR YEARS .LIKEWISE DE CISION IN RAM PRASAD VS. I.T.O. (1995) 82 TAXMAN 199(ALL) WAS RENDERED ON TH E FACTS OF ITS OWN. THE LD. DR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW THESE DECISIONS A RE APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE US. AFTER PE RUSING THESE DECISIONS AND WITH RESPECT WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISI ONS RELIED UPON IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE RENDERED ON THE FACTS OF THEIR OWN A ND RATIO LAID DOWN IN THESE ITA N O.1536 /DEL./2011 14 DECISIONS IS NOT GERMANE TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US. T HEREFORE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS IN THE GROUNDS O F APPEAL IS TOTALLY MISPLACED.. 6.. TO SUM UP IN THE INSTANT CASE AS IS APP ARENT FROM THE FACTS NARRATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON 25.2.2005 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ALREADY AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. NOT EVEN A WHISPER IS EVIDE NT FROM THE REASONS RECORDED OR THE FACTS NARRATED IN THE IMPUG NED ORDERS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN DISCLOSING FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECES SARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT. THE REASONS DO NOT INDICATE WHY AND HOW THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS IN RELATION TO CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ANY SUCH FAILURE AS IS ENVISAGED IN THE PROVISO TO SEC. 147 OF THE ACT IS A MATTER OF FACT ALONE AND THERE CAN BE NO DEEMED FAILURE . IN THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES IN ABSENCE OF ANY FAILURE ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECE SSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT HAVING BEEN ISSUED AFT ER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT A SSESSMENT YEAR THE VERY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 14 7 OF THE ACT STANDS VITIATED AND AS SUCH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED TH E INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 147 HAVING NOT BEEN FULFILLED. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN IN AFORESAID DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND OTHER COURTS CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT ALL THE PRIMARY FACTS WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT NOR ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY AL L THE MATERIAL FACTS ITA N O.1536 /DEL./2011 15 HAS BEEN ASCRIBED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED BEF ORE US. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE SUPPRESSED ANY MAT ERIAL FACTS. IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT IF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT THE JURISDICTIONAL FOUNDATION U/S 14 7 OF THE ACT BEING AVAILABLE TO THE AO THE NOTICE AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS WILL BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THUS LIABLE TO BE STRU CK DOWN . IN VIEW THEREOF WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN UPHOLDING THE F INDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER CONSEQU ENTLY GROUND NO. 1 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFOR E US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO. 2 IN THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUN D IS DISMISSED. 8. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE US. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (A.N. PA HUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER) NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. DY. C.I.T. CIRCLE 3(1) NEW DELHI 2. M/S CITY FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD. 3 LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE PUSHP VIHAR NEW DELHI 3. CIT CONCERNED. 4. CIT(A)-VI NEW DELHI 5. DR ITAT B BENCH NEW DELHI 6.. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT