M/S. SHI vs. HAKTI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,OSMANABADVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, NANDED

We notice at the outset that the instant appeal suffers from 835 days delay in filing, which has been stated to be attributable to various communication gaps as well as approval requirements at official level. The hon‟ble apex court‟s landmark decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) had settled the law long back that the cause of substantial justice must prevail over all technical aspects. We, therefore, reject the Revenue‟s vehement contentions and condone the impugned delay of 835 days in filing appeal as neither intentional nor deliberate.

Next, comes the assessee‟s first and foremost legal issue challenging validity of the impugned reopening. A perusal of the assessment findings in assessment order dated 10.03.2014 at page 1 itself suggests that the impugned reopening had been initiated by the learned assessing authority on the ground that he has received information from the DGIT(Inv), Mumbai revealing hawala transactions in bogus purchases of Rs.11,29,218/- which represented the taxpayer‟s taxable income having escaped assessment. We next note that the Assessing Officer went on to disallow the assessee‟s excess payments made to members to the tune of Rs.1,29,14,547/- which has been upheld in the CIT(A)‟s order.

It thus, emerges as an instance, wherein the learned lower authorities have not made any disallowance or addition pertaining to the sole reason of reopening. That being the case, we quote CIT vs. Jet Airways (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) that such reopening is not sustainable in law as follows:

In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary to advert to some of the judgments of the High Courts, prior to the amendment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its decision, in Vipan Khanna v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 2201 dealt with the question as to whether, after initiating proceedings under section 147 on the ground that the petitioner had claimed depreciation at a higher rate, the Assessing Officer would be justified in launching an inquiry into issues which were not connected with the claim of depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to carry out an assessment, or reassessment in respect of other issues which were totally unconnected with the proceedings that were already initiated and which came to his knowledge during the course of the proceedings. The Division Bench held that in respect of an issue which is totally unconnected to the basis on which the Assessing Officer formed a reason to believe that income escaped assessment and issued a notice under section 148, it was open to him to issue a fresh notice by following sub-section (2) of section 148 with regard to the escaped income which came to his

Parliament stepped in to correct what it regarded as an incorrect interpretation of the provisions of section 147. The Memorandum explain-ing the provisions of Finance (No. 2) Bill of 2009 states in this background that some courts had held that the Assessing Officer has to restrict the reassessment proceedings only to issues in respect of which reasons have been recorded for reopening the assessment and that it was not open to him to touch upon any other issue for which no reasons have been recorded. This interpretation was regarded by Parliament as being contrary to legislative intent. Hence, Explanation 3 came to be inserted to provide that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under section 147 though

The effect of section 147 as it now stands after the amendment of 2009 can, therefore, be summarised as follows : (i) The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year; (ii) Upon the formation of that belief and before he proceeds to make an assessment, reassessment or recomputation, the Assessing Officer has to serve on the assessee a notice under sub-section (1) of section 148; (iii) The Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also 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; and (iv) Though the notice under section 148(2) does not include a particular issue with respect to which income has escaped assessment, he may nonetheless, assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section.

Now the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee in the present case is that the words "and also" in section 147 postulate that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income which he has reason to believe has escaped assessment together with any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings. In other words, unless the Assessing Officer assesses the income with reference to which he had formed a reason to believe within the meaning of section 147, it would not be open to him to assess or reassess any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the revenue that even if, during the course of assessment or, as the case may be reassessment, the Assessing Officer does not assess or reassess the income which he has reason to believe has escaped assessment and which formed the subject-matter of a notice under section 148(2), it is nonetheless open to him to assess any other income which, during the course of the proceedings is brought to his notice as having escaped assessment.

The rival submissions which have been urged on behalf of the revenue and the assessee can be dealt with, both as a matter of first principle, interpreting the section as it stands and on the basis of precedents on the subject. Interpreting the provision as it stands and without adding or deducting from the words used by Parliament, it is clear that upon the formation of a reason to believe under section 147 and following the issuance of a notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer has the power to assess or reassess the income, which he has reason to believe had escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax. The words "and also" cannot be ignored. The interpretation which the Court places on the provision should not result in diluting the effect of these words or rendering any part of the language used by Parliament otiose. Parliament having used the words "assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment", the words "and also" cannot be read as being in the alternative. On the contrary, the correct interpretation would be to regard those words as being conjunctive and cumulative. It is of some significance that Parliament has not used the word "or". The Legislature did not rest content by merely using the word "and". The words "and", as well as "also" have been used together and in conjunction. 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 season to believe is not assessed or reassessed, it would not be open to the 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 1-4-1989 clearly stipulated that the Assessing Officer has to assess or 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 proceedings. In the absence of the assessment or reassessment of the former, he cannot independently assess the latter.

In CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 2971 , the Supreme Court dealt with the following question of law in the course of its judgment:— "Where an item unconnected with the escapement of income has been concluded finally against the assessee, how far in reassessment on an escaped item of income is it open to the assessee to seek a review of the concluded item for the purpose of computation of the escaped income?" The issue which arose before the Supreme Court was whether, in the course of a reassessment on an escaped item of income could an assessee seek a review in respect of an item which stood concluded in the original order of assessment. The Supreme Court dealt with the provisions of section 147, as they stood prior to the amendment on 1- 4-1989. The Supreme Court held that the expression "escaped assessment" includes both "non-assessment" as well as "under assessment". Income is said to have escaped assessment within the meaning of the section when it has not been charged in the hands of an assessee during the relevant assessment year. The expression "assess" refers to a situation where the assessment of the assessee for a particular year is, for the first time, made by resorting to the provisions of section 147. The expression "reassess" refers to a situation where an assessment has already been made but the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that there is under assessment on account of the existence of any of the grounds contemplated by Explanation 1 to section 147. The Supreme Court adverted to the Judgment in V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 373 , which held that once an assessment is validly reopened, the previous under assessment is set aside and the Income-tax Officer has the juri iction and duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped assessment during the previous year. The Court held that the object of section 147 enures to the benefit of the revenue and it is not open to the assessee to convert the reassessment proceedings as an appeal or revision and thereby seek relief in respect of items which were rejected earlier or in respect of items not claimed during the course of the original assessment proceedings. The judgment in V. Jaganmohan Rao's case (supra) dealt with the language of sections 22(2) and 34 of the Act of 1922 while the judgment in Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) interprets the provisions of section 147 as they stood prior to the amendment on 1- 4-1989. 13. The effect of the amended provisions came to be considered in two distinct lines of precedent on the subject. The first line of authority, to which a reference has already been made earlier, adopted the principle that where the Assessing Officer has formed a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and has issued a notice under section 148 on certain specific issues, it was not open to him during the course of the proceedings for assessment or reassessment to assess or reassess any other income, which may have escaped assessment but which did not form the subject-matter of the notice under section 148. This view was adopted in the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vipan Khanna's case (supra) and in the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Travancore Cements Ltd.'s case (supra). This line of authority, would now cease to reflect the correct position in law, by virtue of the amendment which has been brought in by the insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147 by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009. The effect of the Explanation is that once an Assessing Officer has formed a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and has proceeded to issue a notice under section 148, it is open to him to assess or reassess income in respect of any other issue though the reasons for such issue had not been included in the reasons recorded under section 148(2).

The second line of precedent is reflected in a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 . The Rajasthan High Court construed the words used by Parliament in section 147 particularly the words that the Assessing Officer 'may assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings' under section 147. The Rajasthan High Court held as follows : ". . . if is only when, in proceedings under section 147 the Assessing Officer, assesses or reassesses any income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment for any assessment year, with respect to which he had "reason to believe" to be so, then, only in addition, he can also put to tax,

Parliament, when it enacted the 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.'s case (supra) and of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vipan Khanna's case (supra) would, therefore, no longer hold the field. However, insofar as the second line of authority is concerned, which is reflected in the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Shri Ram Singh's case (supra), 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 & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Atlas Cycle 180 ITR 3191. Industries [1989] The decision in Atlas Cycle Industries' case (supra) held that the Assessing Officer did not have juri iction to proceed with the reassessment, once he found that the two grounds mentioned in the notice under section 148 were incorrect

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(1) 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(1) 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

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.”

We adopt the foregoing detailed discussion mutatis mutandis to quash the impugned reopening itself. All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic.

This assessee‟s appeal is allowed in above terms.

The CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad

The Pr.CIT-2, Aurangabad विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, पुणे “B” /

DR „B‟, ITAT, Pune 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune