SHRI SUBRATA KUMAR SAHA,AGARTALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA

आदेश /O R D E R

PER BENCH:- The instant batch of seven cases for assessment year 2010-11 to 15-16 pertaining to a single assessee, Shri Subrata Kumar Saha arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Shillong’s separate order(s) dated(s) 27.03.2018, 26.02.2018 & 06.03.2018 passed in case Nos. CIT(A)- SHG/10288, 10289, 10292, 10293, 10294, 10297 & 10288. Relevant proceedings are u/s 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the

ITA No.20-25/Gau/2019 & 300/Gau/2018 AYs 10-11 to15-16 Shri Subrata Kr. Saha Vs. ACIT, Cir-Agartala Page 2 Act’ in first five cases, u/s 144 in assessment year 2010-11 and u/s 271(1)(c) in appeal ITA No.300/Gau/2018; respectively.

ITA No.20-25/Gau/2019 & 300/Gau/2018 AYs 10-11 to15-16 Shri Subrata Kr. Saha Vs. ACIT, Cir-Agartala Page 3 O/o the JCIT, Agartala” ORDER SHEET Name of the Assessee: Ranjit Kumar Saha PAN: AULPS 6524 J ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 DATE: 02-11-2015 A search and seizure was conducted in the premises of Ranjit Kumar Saha on 25.03.2015. Appraisal of the case has already been received from the DDIT, Guwahati. It is a consequential case of Sushanta Saha. Accordingly a notice u/s. 153A read with Section 153C is issued to the assessee calling return for the Asst. Year 2009-10 being one of the six assessment years preceding to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted) in the prescribed format and be duly verified in prescribed manner and to be submitted to the office of the under signed by 03-12-2015. Sd/-Illigible PREPARED BY DCIT Sd/- Dharrmendra Dev Barman Sd/- Rita Sen Stenographer (Rita Sen) Office Superintendent O/o the JCIT, Agartala”

The assessee then quote this tribunal’s decision in the very search relating to these group enterprise Joyram Enterprise vs. ACIT in ITA No. 260 to 266/Gau/2017 decided on 22.02.2018 quashing identical proceedings in absence of a valid satisfaction as under:- “2. As the facts and issue involved in these appeals are identical, they are being disposed off together by this consolidated order. 3. The grounds raised in the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2009-2010 are as under:- ‘1. For that the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad in law, facts and procedure. 2 For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in not quashing the order of assessment passed by the ld. AO which is barred by limitation. 3. For that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the order passed by the ld. AO as the initiation of proceedings u/s. 1563C of the Act in the instant case is without satisfaction of pre-requisite conditions and consequently, without jurisdiction and bad in law. 4. For that in absence of any valid notice u/s. 153C being served upon the appellant also, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 5. For that the impugned order was passed by the learned CIT(A) in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard and hence, the same is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 6. For that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the arbitrary addition of Rs.33,873/-. 7. For that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the arbitrary addition for Rs.4,86,411/- 8. For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the charge of interest u/s. 234C at Rs.5,948/- is bad in law and untenable. 9. For that your appellant craves leaves of your honours to take additional ground or grounds and/or to modify any ground(s) of appeal at or before the time of hearing.’

ITA No.20-25/Gau/2019 & 300/Gau/2018 AYs 10-11 to15-16 Shri Subrata Kr. Saha Vs. ACIT, Cir-Agartala Page 4

ITA No.20-25/Gau/2019 & 300/Gau/2018 AYs 10-11 to15-16 Shri Subrata Kr. Saha Vs. ACIT, Cir-Agartala Page 5

ITA No.20-25/Gau/2019 & 300/Gau/2018 AYs 10-11 to15-16 Shri Subrata Kr. Saha Vs. ACIT, Cir-Agartala Page 6 notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total, income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A’ 11. We find that the Hon Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biological Ltd. in ITTA No.662 of 2014 dated 26.11.2014, has considered similar facts and analysed the above provisions of Section 153C of the Act and upheld the decision of the Tribunal that initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act was invalid and consequently and consequently, the order passed u/s. 153C was bad in law. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court on a reading of Section 153C of the Act, has held as under:- ‘…. .. It is therefore clear that firstly satisfaction has to be recorded by the Assessing Officer who conducted search, that any money, bullion, jeweellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over third party on receipt of the seized material or books of accounts or document being handed over to him shall record his own satisfaction after examining the same independently without being influenced by the satisfaction of the Seizing Officer. In other words it is not an automatic action. We find satisfaction of two officers is missing. In this connection we set out the text of the order of the Assessing Officer which is as follows:- “search and seizure operation u/s 132 was carried out in the group case of Dr. T. Yadhaiah Goud and others on 25.3.2010. During the course of search operation documents belonging to SHETTY PHARMACEUTICALS & BILOOGICAL LTDD., has been seized. Hence it is considered to initiate proceeding u/s 153C of the IT Act.’ The aforesaid Section mandates recording of satisfaction of the Assessing Officer(s) is a pre-condition for invoking jurisdiction and it is not a mere formality because recording of satisfaction postulates application of mind consciously as the documents seized must be belonging to the any other person other than the person referred to in Section 153-A of the Act. It is contended that the same Assessing Officer is involved in the matter. This fact does not dispense with above requirement. It is settled position of law that when a thing is to be done in one particular manner under law this has to be done in that manner alone and not other way (See Nazir Ahemd v. Kind emperor). We think the learned Tribunal has correctly followed the principle. We do not find any element of law to be decided.’ 12. The above decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court was followed by the Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Sri Satyanarayan Agarwal Vs. Asst. CIT, ITA No. 1764/Hyd/2013 dated 08.01.2016. To the same effect is also the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tanvir Collections Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No.2421/Del/2014, order dated 16.01.2015. The CBDT also vide its Circular No.24/2015, dated 31.12.2015 has accepted the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears, [2014] 362 ITR 673( SC), wherein it was held that recording of a satisfaction

ITA No.20-25/Gau/2019 & 300/Gau/2018 AYs 10-11 to15-16 Shri Subrata Kr. Saha Vs. ACIT, Cir-Agartala Page 7 is sine qua non for taking an action against a person u/s. 158BD of the Act i.e. a person in whose case search was not conducted and also accepted that this decision is squarely applicable in case covered by Section 153C of the Act and also further directed that in pending litigation with regard to recording of satisfaction note u/s. 158BD/153C should be withdrawn/not pressed, if it does not meet the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the circumstances, in the instant case, we find that both the two satisfactions which were required to be recorded by the Assessing Officer as per provisions of Section 153C, one in capacity as the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other in the capacity of the AO of the assessee (other person), both are missing. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act, in the instant case, is bad in law and without jurisdiction and consequently, the orders passed by the AO u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) for all the six assessment years under consideration are liable to be cancelled. 13. The Ld. Departmental Representative has referred to the provisions of Section 124(3)(c) of the Income-tax Act, which provides that no person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer after expiry of one month from the date of service of notice under section 153C of the Income-tax Act or after the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier, to contend that the challenge to the initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act, now at this stages, is not valid. We do not find any merit in this contention of the ld. DR. Firstly, this section 124(3)(c) of the Income-tax Act, was inserted in the statue w.e.f. 01.06.2016, whereas in the instant case, the proceedings u/s. 153C was initiated on 02.11.2015. Moreover, in the instant appeals, the jurisdiction of the AO is not challenged per se but the validity of the action of AO to initiate proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act without recording satisfaction which is a sine qua non, is challenged. It is not the case of the assessee that the ACIT, Circle-Agartala had no jurisdiction to make assessment in the case of the assessee. Further, the issue involved being a legal issue, the same can be raised for the first time before the Tribunal is a settled position of law in view of the decision of Hon’ble, wherein it has been held that nothing prevented the Tribunal to consider the questions of law arising in assessment proceedings, although not raised earlier. We, therefore, hereby cancel the orders of lower authorities for all the six assessment years under consideration and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. 14. In view of our above decision, the issue raised in other grounds of appeal have become infructuous and therefore, the same are not adjudicated.” 3. We afforded adequate opportunity to the department to rebut this clinching fact of Assessing Officer having not recorded a valid satisfaction as prescribed u/s 153C of the Act. There is no such rebuttal forthcoming from the department’s side during the course of hearing. We therefore adopt the above extracted detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to quash the impugned proceedings on account of Assessing Officer’s failure in not recording a valid satisfaction u/s. 153C of the Act. The impugned assessment(s) are accordingly quashed. The assessee’s other grounds on merits are rendered infructuous.” We adopt the above extracted reasoning mutatis mutandis to quash all these assessment(s) framed by the lower authorities in assessment years 2010-11

ITA No.20-25/Gau/2019 & 300/Gau/2018 AYs 10-11 to15-16 Shri Subrata Kr. Saha Vs. ACIT, Cir-Agartala Page 8 to 2014-15. The assessee’s first five appeal(s) ITA No.s 20-24/Gau/2019 succeed accordingly. His assessee’s penalty appeal ITA No.300/Gau/2018 is also accepted as a necessary corollary. 3. Lastly comes assessee’s appeal ITA No.25/Gau/2019 challenging correctness of the sec. 144 “best judgment” on account of Assessing Officer not having issued the corresponding show cause notice as u/s 144(1) of the Act. Learned departmental representative fails to rebut the clinching fact that our very order in related assessee Shri Ranjit Kumar Saha’s case ITA No.108/Gau/2018 has quashed the corresponding assessment as under:- “5. Next coming to latter assessee’s last appeal ITA No.108/Gau/2018 for assessment year 2015-16, we find that he challenges correctness of the best judgment assessment framed by the Assessing Officer on 30.12.2016 without issuing any notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. The clinching fact herein is that no such notice had been issued to the taxpayer during the course of assessment. Same factual position continues sec. 144(1) notice is concerned. We find in this backdrop a co-ordinate bench’s decision in IT(SS)A No.92/Kol/2008 in ACIT vs. Shri Ramesh Chand Rathi decided on 02.02.2018 has held a best judgment assessment as invalid by the following detailed discussion:- “11. We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR and ld. Counsel for the assessee on the preliminary issue of validity of order of assessment passed u/s 158BC read with Section 144 of the Act. It is clear from the order of CIT(A) that notice u/s 142(1) of the act was issued and served on the assessee. The revenue has not challenged this finding of the CIT(A). Nevertheless the ld. DR drew our attention to page no.316 of 6 the assessee’s paper book which is a record of proceedings before AO containing order sheet entries of the AO made in the course of assessment proceedings. In an affidavit filed before the tribunal, the AO has stated that the original order sheet entry is not available in the assessment records. The order sheet entry dated 05.01.2001 reads as follows : “5.01.2001 No block return filed, the notice u/s 142(1) calling for books of A/cs, Bank statement and clarification of seized documents along with copy of A/cs. “ 12. As we have already stated there is no evidence on record to show that notice u/s 142(1) of the act was issued and served on the assessee. It is also seen from the order sheet entry that the order sheet entry dated 05.01.2011 and 16.05.2001 have not been signed by the AO. Therefore the order sheet entry dated 5.1.2001 does not show that notice u/s.142(1) was issued or served on the Assessee. The Revenue in its grounds of appeal has also not chosen to challenge the findings of the CIT(A) that no notice u/s.142(1) was issued or served on the Assessee by the AO before completing the assessment. 13. The ld. DR drew our attention to page 5 of the assessee’s paper book wherein a copy of the notice u/s.142(1) dated 05.01.2001 is placed. The contention of the ld. DR is that the assessee has himself filed the aforesaid notice in its paper book and therefore it should be presumed that the

ITA No.20-25/Gau/2019 & 300/Gau/2018 AYs 10-11 to15-16 Shri Subrata Kr. Saha Vs. ACIT, Cir-Agartala Page 9 assessee was served with the notice us/ 142(1) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that copy of the notice placed in page-5 and 5A of the assesee’s paper book was a copy which was filed by the AO along with the remand report dated 01.02.2008 before CIT(A) and that copy was filed by the assessee in the paper book. It was submitted by him that the aforesaid notice was not served on the assessee nor is there any evidence on record to show that the said notice was issued by the AO. 14. As we have already stated the AO has filed an Affidavit before the Tribunal regarding the non availability of the original order sheet entries containing the entry dated 5.1.2001. We are of the view that in the light of the affidavit filed by the AO before the tribunal regarding non availability of order sheet entries and in the light of clear findings of CIT(A) in his order that no notice u/s 142(1) of the act was issued or served on the assessee by the AO, the contention of the assessee that no notice u/s 142(1) of the act was issued or served on the assessee has to be accepted. The question therefore that arises for consideration is what is the effect of the non issue of service of notice u/s 142(1) of the act? 15. We have already seen that before making the best judgment u/s144(1) of the Act, the AO has to specifically call upon the assessee by a notice to show cause as to why the best judgment should not be made. This is a requirement of the first proviso to section 144(1) of the Act. Admittedly no such notice was either issued or served on the assessee. Such notice may not be required if a notice u/s 142(1) of the act has already been served on the assessee. This is as per the second proviso to section 144(1) of the act. In this case, as we have already seen, no notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was either issue or served on the assessee. Under section 158BH of the act the provision of Chapter- XIV-B namely block assessment proceedings in search cases, it is laid down that the other provision of the Act will apply, except otherwise provided in chapter XIVB. Therefore for making an assessment u./s 158BC of the act r.w.s. 144 of the Act, the requirements laid down in Sec.144 of the Act will have to be satisfied. 16. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC). In the aforesaid decision the question that arose for consideration before the Hon’ble supreme court was as to whether issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is mandatory before making the assessment u/s 158BC r;w.s. 143(3) of the act. The Hon’ble Supreme court held as follows :- “If the Assessing, for any reason, repudiates the return filed by an assessee in response to notice under section 158BC (a) of the Income tax Act, 1961 relating to a block assessment, the Assessing Officer must necessarily issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act within the time prescribed in the proviso to section 143(2). By making the issue of notice mandatory, section 158BC, dealing with assessments, makes such notice the very foundation for jurisdiction. Such notice is required to be served on the person who is found to have undisclosed income. Section 158BC provides for enquiry and assessment. After the return is filed, clause (b) of section 158BC provides that the Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in section 158BB and "the provisions of section 142, sub-sections (2)

ITA No.20-25/Gau/2019 & 300/Gau/2018 AYs 10-11 to15-16 Shri Subrata Kr. Saha Vs. ACIT, Cir-Agartala Page 10 and (3) of section 143, section 144 and section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply. This indicates that this clause enables the Assessing Officer, after the return is filed, to complete the assessment under section 143(2) by following the procedure like issue of notice under section 143(2)/142. This does not provide accepting the return as provided under section 143(1)(a) : the officer has to complete the assessment under section 143(3) only. If an assessment is to be completed under section 143(3) read with section 158BC, notice under section) 43(2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing of the block return. Omission on the assessing authority to issue notice under section 143 (2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and is not curable. Therefore the requirement of notice under section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. 17. The ld. Counsel submitted that though the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was with regard to the necessity of notice u/;s 143(2) of the Act, the Hon’ble supreme court has also made a reference to the provision u/s 142 of the act and has held that his submission was that the absence of notice u/s 142(1) of the act will also render the order of assessment nullity as held by the Hon’ble supreme court. In the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra). 18. The ld. DR further submitted that the observations of the Hon’ble supreme court with regard to the provision of section 142 of the act are only arbitrary and should not be applied for non issue or non service of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and have come to the conclusion that order of assessment u/s 158BC of the Act is not valid for want of service of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The learned DR submitted that the notice u/s.158BC itself serves the purpose of Sec.142(1) notice and therefore the 2nd proviso to Sec.144(1) would apply in the present case. According to him therefore the order u/s.144 of the Act was rightly passed by the AO. 19. We have considered his submission and are of the view that the same is without any merit. Sec.158BC(b) clearly contemplates applicability of provisions of Sec.142 of the Act for framing a order of assessment under Sec.158BC of the Act under Chapter XIV B of the Act. The provisions of Sec.158BC reads thus: Sec.158BC Procedure for block assessment Where any search has been conducted under section 132 or books of account, other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132A, in the case of any person, then,— (a) the Assessing Officer shall— (i) in respect of search initiated or books of accounts or other documents or any assets requisitioned after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January, 1997, serve a notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such time not being less than fifteen days; (ii) in respect of search initiated or books of accounts or other documents or any assets requisitioned on or after the 1st day of January, 1997, serve a notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such time not being less than fifteen days but not more than forty five days, as may be specified in the notice a return in the prescribed form and verified in the same manner as a return under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section

ITA No.20-25/Gau/2019 & 300/Gau/2018 AYs 10-11 to15-16 Shri Subrata Kr. Saha Vs. ACIT, Cir-Agartala Page 11 142, setting forth his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period: Provided that no notice under section 148 is required to be issued for the purpose of proceeding under this Chapter: Provided further that a person who has furnished a return under this clause shall not be entitled to file a revised return; (b) the Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in section 158BB and the provisions of section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143, section 144 and section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply; (c) the Assessing Officer, on determination of the undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment; (d) the assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 132B. 20. It is thus clear that notice u/s.158BC of the Act will not be sufficient compliance or substitute for issue of notice u/s.142 of the Act. Non compliance of terms of a notice u/s.142(1) of the Act has consequences set out in Sec.144 of the Act. Therefore the 1st proviso to Sec.144(1) of the Act contemplates service of a specific notice brining to the notice of the Assessee the consequences of non compliance with the terms of the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. The 2nd proviso to Sec.144(1) provides that the 1st proviso to Sec.144(1) will not apply if a notice u/s.142(1) was already served on the Assessee. This is because in the form of notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, there is a specific clause which says that failure to comply with the said notice will result in an ex-parte assessment being passed. 21. A reading of the Hon’ble supreme court’s decision in the case of Hotel Blue moon (supra) clearly shows that though the issue before the Hon’ble supreme court was with regard to the effect of non issue of service of notice u/s 142(3) of the act on the order of assessment passed u/s 158BC of the act the Hon’ble supreme court has examined the procedural requirement for framing the assessment u/s 158BC of the act. This will be clear from the following observations of the Hon’ble supreme court :- “We may now revert back to section 158BC(b) which is the material provision which requires our consideration. Section 158BC(b) provides for enquiry and assessment. The said provision reads "that the Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in section 158BB and the provisions of section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143, section 144 and section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply."An analysis of this sub-section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under section, 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment section 143(3). This section does riot provide for accepting the return as provided under section 143(1)(a). The Assessing Officer has to complete the assessment under section 143(3) only. In case of

ITA No.20-25/Gau/2019 & 300/Gau/2018 AYs 10-11 to15-16 Shri Subrata Kr. Saha Vs. ACIT, Cir-Agartala Page 12 default in not filing the return or not complying with the notice under Section 143(2)/142, the Assessing Officer is authorized to complete the assessment ex parte under section 144. Clause (b) of section 158BC by referring to section 143(2) and (3) would appear to imply that the provisions of section 143(1) are excluded. But section 143(2) itself becomes necessary only where it becomes necessary to check the return, so that where block return conforms to the undisclosed income inferred by the authorities, there is no reason, why the authorities should issue notice under section 143(4). However, if an assessment is to be completed under section 143(3) read with, section 158BC, notice under section 143(2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing of block return. Omission on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice under section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. Accordingly, we conclude that even for the purpose of Chapter- XIV-B of the Act, for the determination of undisclosed income for a block period under the provisions of section 158BC, the provisions of section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 are applicable and no assessment could be made without issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act.(in bold letters for emphasis) 22. It is thus clear that the provision to section 142 of the act also requires to be complied by the AO while framing the assessment u/s 158BC of the act. Non issue and non service of notice u/s 142(1) as well as in the first proviso u/s 144(1) cannot be regarded as procedural irregularity which is curable. Therefore the effect of such irregularity would be that the assessment will have to be held to be not valid in law and is liable to be annulled. Non compliance with the aforesaid requirement which confer the jurisdiction of the AO would render the order passed by the AO as invalid in law and such order of assessment is liable to be annulled. We also find support from the aforesaid conclusions from the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mohini Devi Malpani vs ITO 77 ITR 674 (Cal). 23. For the reasons given above we hold that the order u/s 158BC of the act is bad in law and liable to be annulled. In particular, we are of the view that the statutory requirement of framing the assessment u/s 144 of the act have not been complied with as contended by the assessee in ground no.2AC of the cross objection. For the reasons given above we annul the order of assessment. 24. One of the argument of the learned DR was that the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra), in so far as it relates to Sec.142 of the Act, are only obiter dictum and therefore should not be regarded as judicial precedent. We are unable to agree with this argument. Even assuming the IT(SS)A.No.92/Kol/2008 & C.O.63/Kol/2008 Shri Ramesh Chand Rathi Block Period 1991-92 to 2000- 01 observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are obiter dictum, yet the same has a binding force as far as the Tribunal is concerned.”

ITA No.20-25/Gau/2019 & 300/Gau/2018 AYs 10-11 to15-16 Shri Subrata Kr. Saha Vs. ACIT, Cir-Agartala Page 13 6. We adopt the above detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to quash this best assessment in assessment year 2015-16 forming subject-matter of ITA 108/Gau/2018.” 4. We adopt the above detailed reasoning hereinabove as well to quash the impugned “best judgment” on account of Assessing Officer’s failure in following the prescribed procedure. This last appeal ITA 25/Gau/2019 is also accepted. 5. The assessee’s instant seven appeals are allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(3) of the ITAT Rules by putting on Notice Board on 02/08/2019 Sd/- Sd/- (लेखा सद�य) (&या'यक सद�य) ( A.L.Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) Guwahati, *Dkp (दनांकः- 02/08/2019 गूवाहाठ� । आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. आवेदक/Assessee-Sri Subrata Kr. Saha, C/o Shri Ranjit Kr. Saha, Old Thana Road, Banamalipur, Nr. Mahanam Angan, Agartala-799001 2. राज�व/Revenue-ACIT, Circle-Agartala, City Centre, 5th Floor, Paradise Chowmohani, HGB Road, Agartala 3. संबं3धत आयकर आयु4त गृवाहाठ9 / Concerned CIT Guwahati 4. आयकर आयु4त- अपील / CIT (A) Guwahati 5. <वभागीय �'त'न3ध, आयकर अपील�य अ3धकरण, गूवाहाठ9 खंङपीठ / DR, ITAT, Guwahati 6. गाडB फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, /True Copy/ Sr. Private Secretary (on tour) आयकर अपील�य अ3धकरण, गूवाहाठ� ।