HARSH COMTRADE PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(4), KOLKATA

The main thrust of our argument is the fact that the information coming in possession of the Assessing Officer is not a credible piece of information and the Assessing Officer has not done any exercise to verify the genuineness of the information and thus, the said information of some debit from a bank account has no nexus with escapement of income. Thus, the crucial link between the information made available to the AO and the formation of belief is absent in this case. The reasons must be self evident, they must speak for themselves. The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped assessment must be evident from a reading of the reasons.

It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had no information of receipt of Rs. 20,00,000/- from M/s. Fastmove Merchants Pvt. Ltd. though in reality there was a receipt of total amount Rs. 36,00,000/- only from the said party. Further, the assessee has filed the statement of bank account that goes to show that the receipt of Rs. 36,00,000/- from M/s. Fastmove Merchants Pvt. Ltd. in two separate transaction on 03.05.2011 & 06.05.2011 is not a new loan but repayments of earlier advances given. However, the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded for re-opening has not mentioned any nature of the transaction. On the sole ground of incorrect reason also, the notice u/s 148 is liable to be quashed although in the present case, the facts are more favourable because the facts of incorrect information is coupled with the fact that case is re-opened on basis of non-credible information without taking any efforts to check the veracity of the information.

Reliance is placed on the decision of Honourable High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Atlas Cycle Industries [1989] 180 ITR 319 (Punjab & Haryana) wherein it was held that - "Grounds alleged in notice under s.148 were incorrect or non- existent and therefore ITO's jurisdictions is ousted the moment this situation comes to his knowledge." It was further held in the said case that - "Following the Supreme Court's decisions in the cases of CIT v. A. Raman & Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831, in the instant case the ITO did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the reassessment, the moment he found the two grounds mentioned in the reassessment notice incorrect or non-existent (Emphasis supplied). Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the reassessment made by the ITO."

Further, there is a direct judgement of Co-ordinate Kolkata Bench on this issue passed in the case of Sundip Kumar Gupta v. DCIT, Circle-47, Kolkata in to1173/Kol/2023 dated 02.07.2024, wherein it was held that-"We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the record. In this case, firstly, the reopening has been made merely on suspicion and solely on the basis of report of Investigation Wing by the Assessing Officer without correlating the said information with the accounts/assessment records of the assessee. As pointed out, had the Assessing Officer correlated the information with the accounts of the assessee, he would have mentioned in the reasons recorded that the assessee had received a fund of Rs. 80,00,000/- instead of Rs. 70,00,000/- as mentioned in the reasons recorded. Secondly, the Assessing Officer himself has mentioned in the reasons recorded that the pattern of the transaction indicated that there was a possibility of routing of unlawful money and probably with intention to convert black money into white money. Thus even in the investigation report, there was suspicion only. Hence, the information from the investigation wing, at the most can be said to be a reason to suspect only. The Assessing officer did not corelate the said information with the accounts of the assessee. There was no credible information available with the Assessing Officer to form the belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. It has been held time and again that the reasons to believe regarding the escapement of the income should be based on certain tangible material and it should not be mere pretence of the Assessing Officer. The reasons to believe does not mean reason to suspect. Reopening of the assessment is not permitted for making fishing and roving enquiries. The Assessing Officer, after receipt of alleged information received from the Investigation Wing was supposed to corelate the same with the records and other facts of the case and thereafter should have satisfied himself of escapement of income. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, reopening of the assessment in this case is held as bad in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das' reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Ltd.' reported in 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and in the case of 'CIT vs. Atul Jain' reported in [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), further of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of 'CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur reported in (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H)."

There is one more dimension to our main limb of argument. It is pertinent to note that the reason for re-opening talks about income escaping assessment of Rs. 20,00,000/- which the Assessing Officer has assumed to be undisclosed. However, he has made addition on the basis of entry in the bank account amounting to Rs. 36,00,000/- which was already disclosed in the audit report and ITR. Thus, there is difference in amount as well as nature of amount. This shows that alleged income of Rs. 20,00,000/- on basis of suspicion which was purportedly undisclosed and the actual addition made of credit entry in disclosed bank statement are entirely different. 16. it can thus be said that the re-opening is made on the grounds of Rs. 20,00,000/- being amount attributable to the assessee as some beneficiary however in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has made addition on account of other grounds on basis of some entry in bank account.

In such scenario, the courts have held that Explanation 3 to section 147 cannot be read as conjunctive but has to be read as disjunctive. Evidently, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 36,00,000/- is as per the statement submitted by the assessee during assessment proceedings whereas the Assessing Officer did not inquire any entries of bank statement of the assessee at the time of re-opening. There is nothing brought by the Assessing Officer with regard to the receiving of Rs. 20,00,000/-, save and except this fact that he received some information from Investigation Wing which was not eventually verified. The Assessing Officer failed to provide any details of the alleged receipt of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the said party at any point of time at the time of re-opening or even during assessment. Hence it is clear that the proceeding u/s. 147 was under taken proposing to make addition on different grounds as opposed to the actual additions made in the assessment order and hence on this count also, the re-assessment is liable to be quashed.

Reliance is placed on the following decisions as discussed below: a. CIT vs, Jet Airways (1) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bom) "The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines the expression "also" to mean further, in addition besides, too. The word has been treated as being relative and conjunctive. Evidently therefore, what Parliament intends by use of the words "and also" is that the Assessing Officer, upon the formation of a reason to believe under section 147 and the issuance of a notice under section 148(2) must assess or reassess: (i) such income; and also (ii) any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. The words "such income" refer to the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment, and in respect of which the Assessing Officer has formed a reason to believe that it has escaped assessment. Hence, the language which has been used by Parliament is indicative of the position that the assessment or reassessment must be in respect of the income in respect of which he has formed a reason to believe that it has escaped assessment and also in respect of any other income which comes to his notice subsequently during the course of the proceedings as having escaped assessment. If the income, the escapement of which was the basis of the formation of the reason to believe is not assessed or reassessed, it would not be Assessing Officer to independently assess only that income which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section as having escaped assessment. If upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), the Assessing Officer accepts the objections of the assessee and does not assess or reassess the income which was the basis of the notice, it would not be open to him to assess income under some other issue independently. Parliament when it enacted the provisions of section 147 with effect from April 1, 1989 clearly stipulated that the Assessing Officer has to assess to reassess the income which he had reason to believe had escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which came to his notice during the proceeding. In the absence of the assessment or reassessment of the former, he cannot independently assess the latter. The Hon'ble High Court thus adjudicated the issue as under: "Parliament, when, it enacted Explanation 3 to section 147 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 clearly had before it both the lines of precedent on the subject. The precedent dealt with two separate questions. When it effected the amendment by bringing in Explanation 3 to section 147, Parliament stepped in to correct what it regarded as an interpretational error in the view which was taken by certain courts that the Assessing Officer has to restrict the assessment or reassessment proceedings only to the issues in respect of which reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment. The corrective exercise embarked upon by Parliament in the form of Explanation 3 consequently provides that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice under section 148(2). The decisions of the Kerala High Court in Travancore Cements Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 170 and of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vipan Khanna [2002] 255 ITR 220 would, therefore, no longer hold the field. However, in so far as the second line of authority is concerned, which is reflected in the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Shri Ram Singh (2008) 306 ITR 343, Explanation 3 as inserted by Parliament would not take away the basis of that decision. The view which was taken by the Rajasthan High Court was also taken in another judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Atlas Cycle Industries [1989] 180 ITR 319. The decision in Atlas" Cycle Industries [1989] 180 ITR 319 held that the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the reassessment once he found that the two grounds mentioned in the notice under section 148 were incorrect or nonexistent. The decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Atlas Cycle Industries [1989] 180 ITR 319 and of the Rajasthan High Court in Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 would not be affected by the amendment brought in by the insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147. Explanation 3 lifts the embargo, which was inserted by judicial interpretation, on the making of an assessment of reassessment on grounds other than those on the basis of which a 148. Setting out the reasons, for the belief that income had escaped assessment. Those judicial decisions had held that when the assessment was sought to be reopened on the ground that income had escaped assessment on a certain issue, the Assessing Officer could not make an assessment or reassessment on another issue which came to his notice during the proceedings. This interpretation will no longer hold the field after the insertion of Explanation 3 by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009. However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147. An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override it or render the substance and core nugatory. Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing Officer has to assess or reassess the income ("such income") which escaped assessment and which was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income. If he intends to do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee. We have approached the issue of interpretation that has arisen for decision in these appeals, both as a matter of first principle, based on the language used in section 147 and on the basis of the precedent on the subject. We agree with the submission which has been urged on behalf of the assessee that section 147 as it stands postulates that upon the formation of a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income" and also" any other income chargeable to tax which comes to his notice subsequently during the proceedings as having escaped assessment. The words "and also" are used in a cumulative and conjunctive sense. To read these words as being in the alternative would be to rewrite the language used by Parliament. Our view has been supported by the background which led to the insertion to Explanation 3 to section 147. Parliament must be regarded as being aware of the interpretation that was placed on the words "and also" by the Rajasthan High Court in Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343. Parliament has not taken away the basis of that decision. While it is open to Parliament, having regard to the plenitude of its legislative powers to do so, the provisions of section 147 as they stood after the amendment of April 1, 1989, continue to hold the field. In that view of the matter and for the reasons that we have indicated, we do not regard the decision of the Tribunal in the present case as being in error. The question of law shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."

There are few other cases on which the assessee would like to rely upon on this issue- a. M/s Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. ITAT No. 60 of 2014, GA No. 1736 of 2014 (Calcutta-HC) b. Artex Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [ITA No. 798/Kol/2023] dated 16.10.2023 c. Babita Devi Kajoria vs. ITO [ITA No. 54/Kol/2020] dated 22.12.2022 21. There is another direct judgement on this issue of the Co-ordinate Kolkata Bench passed in dated 02.05.2024 in the case of M/s. R.S. Darshan Singh Motor Car Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-11(3), Kolkata wherein it was adjudicated as under -7. We are of this view that A/O did not apply his own mind to the information and examine the basis and material of the information.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed"

Even otherwise, it is submitted that it is well settled law that the case cannot be re-opened for the sake of inquiry or on the basis of suspicion.

The Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) [41 ITR 191] (SC) analyzed the Phrase "reason to believe" and observed that - "It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody else to tell the assessing authority what inferences, whether of facts or law, should be drawn." In the present case, the reasons recorded had neither any nexus with the escapement of income nor any material coming in possession of the assessing officer had any live nexus with the escapement of income.

In ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the powers of the ITO to reopen the assessment, though wide are not plenary. The words used by the statute are "reasons to believe" and not "reasons to suspect". SUBMISSION ON MERITS 25. Even on merits of the case, the undisputed facts of the case as can be culled are that on perusal of information received from Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had received Rs.36,00,000/- from M/s. Fast Move Merchants Pvt. Ltd. and presumed that the assessee was beneficiary of unaccounted black money routed through various shell companies maintained and controlled by entry operator. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1), however the assessee could not reply to the above notices due to family issues. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 19.11.2019 was issue to the assessee as to why the said amount of Rs. 36,00,000/- as received through accommodation entry through layering of funds should not be added to the total income. In response to the above show cause notice, the assessee submitted a reply on 21.11.2019 through e- compliance, wherein it was stated that the amount of Rs. 36,00,000/- was received from Fastmove Merchants Pvt Ltd against the unsecured loan given by the assessee in previous years. The assessee had also submitted documents called for along with the above reply as follow: a. Tax audit report b. Bank statement c. Fastmove merchants Pvt Ltd master data from MCA d. Fastmove merchants Pvt Ltd certificate of incorporation e. Confirmation from Fastmove merchants Pvt. Ltd 26. It is to be noted that through e-compliance portal the assessee complied to various notices issued, however the Assessing Officer failed to consider any of the reply submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 36,00,000/- by treating it as unaccounted money, without considering the reply of the assessee.

Further, it is submitted that it is not discernable from the assessment order as to how the Assessing Officer has arrived at the figure of Rs. 36,00,000/- as regard to the date of transaction in the bank and the amount.

Infact, the bank statement is filed in the Paperbook and there is no single entry of Rs. 36,00,000/- identified by the Assessing officer from the bank statement. The copy of the bank statement is filed in the Paper Book. Further, the assessee is not provided any opportunity of cross examination nor supplied any copy of material which is relied upon by the Assessing Officer while making the additions which is in violation to Section 142(3) as stated supra.

Hence, even on merits, the submissions at Para 23 to 30 are relied upon and hence such adhoc additions without any basis should be deleted. On perusal of the audit report, it can be seen that there is liquidation of equity shares standing on the asset side of the balance sheet which is undisputed and the same amount is advanced to various concerns viz. Roopam Sarees Pvt. Ltd. and Roopam Designer Sarees Pvt. Ltd. as loan given of Rs. 97,00,000/- and Rs. 1,67,00,000/- respectively and hence there is no introduction of new credit in the books of accounts of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. which can represent unaccounted money. Infact, there were corresponding addition in the assessment order of Roopam Sarees Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2012-13 wherein the source in the hands of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. is accepted as genuine and the copy of appellate order of Ld. CIT(A) in order dated 12.12.2019 vide Appeal No. CIT(A)/Surat-2/10367/15-16 [DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2019- 20/1022212767(1)] is filed in the Paper Book. On perusal of the order, it can be seen that in hands of Roopam Sarees Pvt. Ltd, the Ld CIT(A) using his power co-terminus with the power of AO has scrutinized the source of source in the hands of Roopam Sarees Pvt Ltd and such source of source in the bank account of Harsh Comtrade Pvt Ltd and has given relief to Roopam Sarees Pvt Ltd considering the said transaction as genuine. The Revenue has not filed further any appeal and thus the issue has attained finality. Thus, no adverse view is called for and the addition made in the hands of assessee company Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. is also liable to be deleted.

The issue is directly covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 819 of 2015] dated 17.04.2018, wherein it was held that, "The tribunal have heard the rival submissions and concluded that since this is a case of repayment of loan given by the assessee, there is no requirement on the part of the assessee to prove the source of funds in the hands of assessee. There cannot be any dispute on the above reasoning."

Reliance is therefore placed on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Vijay Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 141/Mum/2018] dated 30.01.2019, wherein it was held that; "We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant materials on record. So far as receipt of Rs. 13,48,50,000/- from Prakruti Infrastructure P. Ltd. is concerned the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that since this is a case of repayment of loan given by the assessee, there is no requirement on the part of the assessee to prove the source of funds in the hands of Prakruti Infrastructure P. Ltd. There cannot be any dispute on the above reasoning. We are supported by the decision in Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and M/s SDB Estate Pvt. Ltd. (supra)."

In view of the above and relying on the submissions filed before Ld. CIT(A) and case laws filed, the Honourable Tribunal is please requested to delete the addition and oblige.

It was the submission that the assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment on multiple grounds as has been mentioned in para 2 of his written submission. it was the submission that primarily the reopening is being challenged on the ground that the reopening has been done only on the basis of suspicion, secondly that the amount mentioned in the reasons recorded are incorrect and the addition made in the assessment is totally a different figure, thirdly was that even after the introduction o the Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, when the substantive addition has not been made on the basis of the reasons recorded no other addition can

It was the submission that the AO in his reasons recorded mentions that he has received information from the ADIT(Investigation), Unit-2(2), Kolkata vide letter dated 16.03.2018 that the assessee has received Rs.51 lakhs from M/s First Move Merchant Pvt. Ltd. It was the submission that the AO has extracted the copy of the information received in which it also shows the break up of Rs.51 lakhs as having been hand written. It was submitted that subsequently the AO holds that the assessee has received Rs.20 lakhs as unaccounted black money. The ld. AR further drew my attention the assessment order wherein the assessing officer mentions that the information received is in regard to Rs.36 lakhs received by the assessee during the financial year 2011-2012 and the AO has made addition on Rs.36 lakhs. It was the submission that in the reasons recorded the AO has mentioned Rs.20 lakhs and the addition made in the assessment is not of Rs.20,00,000/- but of Rs.36 lakhs. It was further submitted that in view of the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sundip Kumar Gupta, passed in dated 02.07.2024, wherein the coordinate bench has held that on similar circumstances the reopening is liable to be quashed. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard is as follows:- 7. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the record. In this case, firstly, the reopening has been made merely on suspicion and solely on the basis of report of Investigation Wing by the Assessing Officer without correlating the said information with the accounts/assessment records of the assessee. As pointed out, had the Assessing Officer correlated the information with the accounts of the assessee, he would have mentioned in the reasons recorded that the assessee had received a fund of Rs.80,00,000/- instead of Rs.70,00,000/- as mentioned in the reasons recorded. Secondly, the Assessing Officer himself has mentioned in the reasons recorded that the pattern of the transaction indicated that there was a possibility of routing of unlawful money and probably with intention to convert black money into white money. Thus even in the investigation report, there was suspicion only. Hence, the information from the investigation wing, at the most can be said to be a reason to suspect only. The Assessing officer did not corelate the said information with the accounts of the assessee. There was no credible information available with the Assessing Officer to form the belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. It has been held time and again that the reasons to believe regarding the escapement of the income should be based on certain tangible material and it should not be mere pretence of the Assessing Officer. The reasons to believe does not mean reason to suspect. Reopening of the assessment is not permitted for making fishing and roving enquiries. The Assessing Officer, after receipt of alleged information received from the Investigation Wing was supposed to corelate the same with the records and other facts of the case and thereafter should have satisfied himself of escapement of income. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, reopening of the assessment in this case is held as bad in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das' reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Ltd.' reported in 395 ITR 677 (Del.) and in the case of 'CIT vs. Atul Jain' reported in [2008] 299 ITR 383 (Delhi), further of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of 'CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur' reported in (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H).

It was further submitted that in regard to the issue of amounts being not correctly considered, the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Atlas Cycle Industries, reported in [1989] 180 ITR 319 (P&H) as also the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Limited, reported in (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), wherein it has been held that where the AO does not assess or, as the case may be, reassess the income which he has reason to believe had escaped assessment and which formed the basis of a notice u/s.148 of the Act, it is open to the AO to assess or reassess independently any other income which does not form the subject matter of the notice. Basically, the contention of the assessee is that if no addition has been made on the basis of the reasons recorded, then without issuing a fresh notice for reopening, after recording the valid reasons of reopening, the AO cannot make additions on other issues. In regard to the assessment order also on merits, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had responded to the notice issued even through the AO mentions that the assessee has not responded. The ld. AR drew my attention to the pages 22 & 23 of the paper book which reads as follows :-

Now, coming to the decision quoted by the ld. AR in respect of Sundip Kumar Gupta, supra, in the said case the coordinate bench of the Tribunal mentioned that the reasons to believe does not mean reasons to suspect. In the present case, a perusal of the reason shows that the suspicion part is in regard to the information which has been given by the ADIT(Inv.), Unit- 2(2), Kolkata. The finding of the AO for the purpose of reopening clearly uses the words “I have gone through the above information and the details and I am satisfied that Rs.20,00,000/- is unaccounted black money routed through various shell companies, in order to look to be genuine transaction. Thus, Rs.20,00,000/- has remained undisclosed”. What more clarity is being called for in the reasons recorded. The AO had gone through the information provided to him. He has verified the details and has recorded his satisfaction in regard to income escaping assessment. In these circumstances, the decision relied upon by the ld. AR in the case of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sundip Kumar Gupta, referred to supra, does not apply to the facts of the present case.

Coming to the decision relied upon by the ld. AR in the case of Atlas Cycle Industries (supra) and in the case of Jet Airways (supra), a perusal of the assessment order shows that the AO has brought to tax the amount received by the assessee from M/s Fast Move Merchants Pvt. Ltd. The reasons recorded clearly show that the transactions on the basis of which the AO has reopened the assessment relates to M/s Fast Move Merchants Pvt. Ltd.. The addition made in the assessment order are in relation to the same transaction and there is no variation except for the amount of alleged income which has escaped assessment. The amount brought to tax in the assessment order far exceeds the amount mentioned in the reasons recorded. Consequently, the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryan High Court in the case of Atlas Cycle Industries (supra) so also the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways (supra) have no applicability to the facts of the present case.

In regard to the Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, as I have already held above that reopening is valid and the reasons recorded are also valid, the applicability of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act would not have any effect.