ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

आयकर अपील�य अधीकरण, �यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 Assessment Years :2009-10 to 2011-12

Anjan Kumar Naha V/s. Income Tax Officer, C/o D.J. Shah & Co. Ward-44(1), 3, Kalyan Bhavan 2, Elgin Government Place Road, Kolkata-700020 West, Kolkata- [PAN No.ABTPN 2458 B] 700001 .. अपीलाथ� /Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent

Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate आवेदक क� ओर से/By Assessee Shri Rabin Choudhury, Addl. CIT-SR-DR राज�व क� ओर से/By Respondent 02-05-2019 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- These three appeal(s) for assessment year(s) 2009-10 to 2011-12 arise from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13 Kolkata’s order(s) all dated 28.08.2017 passed in case Nos.165, 168 & 167/CIT(A)-13/Kol/2014-15 u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) as well as paper book(s) stands perused. 2. It transpires at the outset that the assessee’s first and foremost substantive grievance identically pleaded in all the three instant appeal(s) challenge correctness of both the lower authorities’ action taking recourse to sec. 148 r.w.s. 147 re-opening giving rise to his impugned re-assessment(s). The assessee’s case as per its pleadings qua the former issue is that the

ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 2 Assessing Officer had erred in initiated the impugned proceedings without forming any reasonable belief of his taxable “income” having escaped assessment. His latter argument is that the Assessing Officer never supplied copy of the re-opening reasons despite many requests. He quotes hon'ble apex court’s decision in G.K. N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) that the re-assessments are vitiated qua the instant legal defect as well. 3. Learned Departmental Representative submits that the assessee has not raised the instant legal issue before the lower authorities and therefore, the same deserves to be declined on this precise reason alone. Mr. Shah takes us CIT(A)’s discussion in page-5 clearly mentioning the assessee to have canvassed his legal plea to this effect. We therefore decline the Revenue’s foregoing technical plea.

ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 3

On further perusal, it was gathered that during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y 2009-10, Bank statement was furnished by the assessee bearing account no. 32910097287 with Standard Chartered Bank which was for the part period i.e. -01.04.2008 to 22.11.2008 only whereas for the remaining period Bank statement of M/s Himani Enterprise was enclosed bearing account no.32905029120 for suppression of total receipts as well as payment. On perusal of Return of Income for AY 2009-10, it is found that the above mentioned Bank accounts have not been shown in his Return of Income. I have, therefore, reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the year under reference and the case is fit for reopening u/s/. 147 of the IT Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act. In this case, approval of Learned. JCIT, Range-41, Kolkata is required as assessment has been made for the relevant assessment year u/s.143(3) and 4 years from the end of the relevant. AY has not been elapsed. Put up for kind perusal and approval.” The assessee vehemently contends during the course of hearing that the above extracted re-opening reasons make it clear that the Assessing Officer had not been formed any belief of his taxable income having escaped assessment based any tangible material. Our attention is invited to the above extracted portion that the Assessing Officer had merely observed that the assessee had made huge transactions in his bank account(s) not shown in the respective returns. Mr. Choudhury, on the other hand, vehemently supports the above re-opening reasons that the assessee had not disclosed the corresponding bank accounts in the return.

ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 4 taxable income having escaped assessment do not withstand the test of law as follows:- “7. Heard. The facts are not disputed. A bare perusal of the reasons recorded for issuance of notice u/s/. 148 of the Act, shows that the only material available before the AO was the AIR information of the assessee having deposited an amount of Rs.11,18,886/- lakhs in his savings bank account. The assessee was issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act in pursuance to the aforesaid reasons. In ‘Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO, Ward-1, Haldwani’ 53 Taxman.com 366 (Del.-Trib), like in the present case, the reasons recorded indicated that cash deposits had been made in the bank account of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the mere factum of deposits having been made in a bank account does not indicate that these deposits constitute an income which has escaped assessment. It was observed that the reasons recorded did not make out a case that the assessee was engaged in some business and the income from such a business had not been returned by the assessee. In the case at hand also, the reasons recorded do not contain any such recital. The Tribunal held that the factum per se, of deposits in the bank account of the assessee could not be made the basis for holding the view that income had escaped assessment, over- looking that the sources of the deposits need not necessarily be the income of the assessee; and that as such, the reasons recorded were not sufficient to believe escapement of income; that rather, they were reasons to suspect escapement of income, which was not enough for issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Act. 8. ‘Sijwali’ (Supra) has been followed in ‘Sh. Ashwani Kumar vs. ITO’, order dated 23.02.2016, passed by the ITAT, Amritsar (SMC), in ITA No. 129(Asr)/2015, for A.Y. 2005-06 and in ‘Krishna Kumar Tripathi vs. ITO’, order dated 31.7.2017, passed by the ITAT, Agra (SMC), in ITA No. 87/Agra/2016, for A.Y. 2011-12. 9. ‘Sijwali’ (Supra) was also followed in ‘Sh. Amrik Singh vs. ITO’, order dated 11.05.2016, passed by the ITAT, Amritsar (SMC) in ITA No.630(Asr)/2015, for A.Y. 2006-07, to hold, interalia as follows: “45. In ‘Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali’ (supra), it has been held that where the AO issued a notice u/s 148 on the ground that there was an escapement of income and the belief regarding such escapement of income was formed on the fallacious assumption of the AO that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income, over-looking the fact that the source of the deposits need not necessarily be the income of the assessee, the reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained. In the present case, similarly, the basis of initiation of the assessment proceedings u/s 147 was the information with the Department, of the deposits made by the assessee in his bank account. 46. ‘Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali’ (supra), makes reference to ‘Hindusan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar’, 268 ITR 332 (Bom.), to hold that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are to be examined on a standalone basis and nothing can be added to the reasons. It was also observed that the reasons must point out to an income escaping assessment and not merely need of an enquiry which may result in detection of an income escaping assessment. It was observed that it is necessary that there must be something which indicates, even if it does not establish, the escapement of income from assessment; that it is only on that basis that the AO can form a prima-facie belief that an income has escaped assessment; that merely because some further investigations have not been carried out, which, if made, could have led to detection of an income escaping assessment, this cannot be reason enough to hold the view that the income has escaped assessment; and that

ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 5 there has to be some kind of cause and effect of relationship between the reasons recorded and the income escaping assessment. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das’, 103 ITR 437 (SC), were reproduced, as under: “the reasons for the formation of the belief must have rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the ITO and the formation of this belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. It is no doubt true that the Court cannot go into sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the ITO on the point as to whether action should be initiated for reopening assessment. At the same time we have to bear in mind that it is not any and every material, howsoever vague and indefinite or distant, remote and farfetched, which would warrant the formation of the belief relating to escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment.” 47. It was further observed as follows: “8. Let us, in the light of this legal position, revert to the facts of the case before us. All that the reasons recorded for reopening indicate is that cash deposits aggregating to Rs.10,24,100/- have been made in the bank account of the assessee, but the mere fact that these deposits have been made in a bank account does not indicate that these deposits constitute an income which has escaped assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment do not make out a case that the assessee was engaged in some business and the income from such a business has not been returned by the assessee. As we do not have the liberty to examine these reasons on the basis of any other material or fact, other than the facts set out in the reasons so recorded, it is not open to us to deal with the question as to whether the assessee could be said to be engaged in any business; all that is to be examined is whether the fact of the deposits, per se, in the bank account of the assessee could be basis of holding the view that the income has escaped assessment. The answer, in our humble understanding, is in negative. The Assessing Officer has opined that an income of Rs.10,24,100/- has escaped assessment of income because the assessee has Rs.10,24,100/- in his bank account but then such an opinion proceeds on the fallacious assumption that the bank deposits constitute undisclosed income, and overlooks the fact that the sources of deposit need not necessarily be income of the assessee. Of course, it may be desirable, from the point of view of revenue authorities, to examine the matter in detail, but then reassessment proceedings cannot be resorted to only to examine the facts of a case, no matter how desirable that be, unless there is a reason to believe, rather than suspect, that an income has escapement assessment.” 48.The Tribunal concluded thus: “but then in the case before us the only reason for reassessment proceedings was the fact of deposit of bank account which by itself does not lead to income being taxed in the hands of the assessee. Learned Departmental Representative has referred to several other judicial precedents in support of the proposition that at the stage of

ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 6 initiation of reassessment proceedings, all that is to be seen is existence, rather than adequacy, of the material to come to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment. There cannot be any, and there is no, doubt on the correctness of this proposition but then, as we have elaborately explained earlier in this order, the material must indicate income escaping assessment rather than desirability of further probe in the matter which may or may not lead to income escaping the assessment, in our humble understanding, cannot be drawn. 49. Now, in keeping with ‘Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali’ (supra), this information cannot form a valid basis for initiating assessment proceedings under section 147 of the I.T. Act. As observed in ‘Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali’ (supra), the mere fact that the deposits had been made in the bank account does not indicate that these deposits constitute income which has escaped assessment. 50.Thus, it was a mere suspicion of the AO, that prompted him to initiate assessment proceedings under section 147, which is neither countenanced, nor sustainable in law. Too, the AO proceeded on the fallacious assumption that the bank deposits constituted undisclosed income, over-looking the fact that the source of the deposits need not necessarily be the income of the assessee. That being so, in keeping with ‘Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali’ (supra), the reasons recorded to initiate assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and all proceedings pursuant thereto, culminating in the impugned order, are cancelled. Ground No.2 is, accordingly, accepted.” 10. ‘Sijwali’ (Supra) and ‘Amrik Singh’ (Supra) were followed in ‘Munni Devi vs. ITO’, order dated15.09.2016, passed by the ITAT, Delhi (SMC), in ITA No.3534/Del/2014, for A.Y. 2007-08 and ‘Harmeet Singh vs. ITO’, order dated 10.02.2017 passed by the ITAT, Delhi (SMC), in ITA No. 1939/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2008-09. 11. No decision contrary to the above decisions has been cited before me. 12. In view of the above, finding merit in the grievance raised by the assessee, the reasons recorded by the AO for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act are held to be invalid, being reasons not sufficient to form belief of escapement of income, based on vague information. All proceedings pursuant thereto, including notice issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, the assessment order and the impugned order are thus annulled and cancelled. No other issue survives for adjudication, nor was anything else argued.” Coupled with this, the Assessing Officer had also not supplied the assessee his re-opening reasons. This clinching factual position has no where been rebutted at the Revenue’s behest either in the lower appellate discussion, the Assessing Officer’s remand report as well as the instant second appellate proceedings. We notice in these backdrops of fact that hon'ble Delhi high court’s decision in ITA No.916/Del/2015 in Pr.CIT vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors decided on 29.08.2017 holds that the re-opening in such a case is vitiated as under:-

ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 7 “2. The short question sought to be urged by the Revenue in these appeals is whether “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT could have held that since the Assessee was not given the copy of the reasons for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act by the Assessing Officer, the whole assessment proceedings and the resultant order of assessment passed under Section 143 (3) read with 148 of the Act have become vitiated?" Background facts 3. The background facts are that the Respondent-Assessee, a firm, was engaged in the business of exhibition of films. It also received rental income. For the AYs in question, no return of income was filed by the Assessee under Section 139 (I) of the Act, although the Assessee was a registered tax payer and had been filing its returns of income in earlier years. 4. The case of the Department was that on examination of the assessment records, it was noticed that the Assessee had income from letting out of the property to Syndicate Bank, Vijaya Bank and Canara Bank. On the basis of the information received from the said banks, it was discovered that rent had been paid to the Assessee by them after deduction of tax at source. Notice under Section 148 5. On 2nd September 2005, the Assessing Officer ('AO') recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment in the file. On the same date, i.e. 2nd September 2005, notice was issued to the Assessee under Section 148 of the Act asking it to file the return of income within 30 days. It is stated that the Assessee filed the return of income on 16th December 2005, after a lapse of more than 3 months. Notices were issued under Section 143 (2) and 142 (I) of the Act by the AO along with a questionnaire. Separate notices were issued for each of the AY s. 6. As far as AY 1999-00 was concerned, the return of income filed by the Assessee on 31st March 2006 pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Act disclosed for the first time, income of Rs.2,61,677/-, which included income from the house property and business income from Novelty Cinema. It is stated that the Assessee firm, at various stages before the AO in the reassessment proceedings sought a number of adjournments. Admittedly, on 23rd June 2006, a letter addressed to the AO by the Assessee sought supply of the reasons for reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. 7. Admittedly, for none of the AYs were reasons for reopening furnished by the AO to the Assessee. Since the assessment was getting time barred on 22nd December 2006, the AO on 22nd December 2006 proceeded to pass separate reassessment orders in respect of each of the above AY s, making additions of the income from house property. Proceedings before the CIT(A) 8. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the Assessee filed separate appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)']. In the appeals, one of the principal contentions raised by the Assessee was regarding failure of the AO to supply the Assessee reasons for reopening of the assessment. During the pendency of the appellate proceedings, a remand report was called for by the CIT (A) from the AO. This remand report was submitted by the AO on 13th July 2007 and a copy thereof was provided to the Assessee who filed a response thereto on 4th December 2007.

ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 8

ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 9 Manufacturing Company v. The Commissioner of Income Tax IV [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del) and that of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Limited (decision dated 27th November 2006 in ITA No. 7112006). It was held that the decision of this Court in Haryana Acrylic (supra) was binding on the Revenue. The failure to supply the reasons under Section 148 of the Act despite requests was held to have vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings. Submissions of counsel for the Revenue 15. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Senior standing counsel for the Revenue, submitted that even in GKN Driveshafts (supra) the Supreme Court did not invalidate the entire assessment proceeding but only permitted the Assessee to again avail of an opportunity of tiling its objections to the reopening of the assessment. The reassessment proceedings were kept in abeyance till this procedure was completed. It is accordingly submitted that, in the present case also, if the Court is of the view that procedure outlined in GKN Driveshaft (supra) was not completed and that the reassessment proceedings could not have continued, the Court can direct the entire proceedings to recommence from that stage and give a time-bound direction for completing of the procedure involving consideration of the Assessee's objections to the reopening of the assessment. 16. Without prejudice to the above submissions, Mr. Hossain submitted that the present case is distinguishable from the decisions in GKN Driveshafts (supra) and Haryana Acrylic (supra). This was a case where no return was filed by the Assessee for the AY in question despite having both business income as well as income from house property. Therefore, the Aa was justified in having reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. He referred to the decision in CIT v. P.C. Chemicals (2013) 359 ITR 129 which in turn referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer v. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC). Mr. Hossain also relied on the decision of the Supreme , Court in CIT, Shillong v. Jai Prakash Singh(l996) 3 SCC 525 where it was held that mere failure to produce a witness for cross-examination would not vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. One more opportunity was given to the Assessee to go before the AO for that purpose. Submissions on behalf of the Assessee 17. Mr. YK. Kapur, learned counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand relied on the passages in GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited v. ITO (supra), Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and the decisions of the Bombay High Court Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trend Electronics Manu/MH/2724/2015 and CIT v. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Limited (supra). 18. Mr. Kapur submitted that the law was well settled that a failure to supply reasons under Section 148 of the Act would vitiate the entire reassessment proceedings. Analysis and reasons 19. The above submissions have been considered. In GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited v. ITO (supra), the Supreme Court highlighted the procedure that ought to be followed when the assessment is proposed to be reopened under Section 148 of the Act. It explained that "the proper course of action for the notice to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. Un re6eipt of reasons, the assessee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order."

ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 10 20. It appears that in the above case, the reasons were furnished only during the course of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. Prior thereto no such procedure had been devised regarding raising of objections to the reopening and the disposal of such objections by the AO by a speaking order even prior to the commencement of the reassessment proceedings. On the facts of that case, the Supreme Court it was directed that "the Assessing Officer has to dispose of the objections if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment, in respect of the abovesaid five assessment orders." 21. The above decision in GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited v. ITO (supra) was dated 25th November 2002. After this date the law is presumed t'! have been within the knowledge of all the Revenue officials. The failure thereafter by the AO to provide the Assessee the reasons for reopening the assessment could not be treated as a mere procedural lapse. It would not in all cases be open to the Revenue to simply seek to overcome this lapse by offering that the AO will consider the Assessee's objections and pass a fresh reasoned order thereon. This will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. If the lapse is discovered within a short time and the offer to rectify the apse is made soon thereafter, no prejudice could be said to be caused either to the Assessee or the Revenue. Where, however, the Revenue contests the position at every stage and offers to consider the objections several years after it should have in the first place, the request to start the proceedings de novo may neither be fair nor efficacious. 22. In the present case the assessments of AY s 1999-2000 onwards for five years are sought to be reopened. The offer to consider the Assessee's objections to the reopening and pass an order thereon is being made after nearly two decades. Having contested these proceedings for all these years the revenue is not fair in making this offer after all these years. Consequently, this Court is unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Hossain that in the present case involving the reopening of assessments for AYs 1999-2000 to 2004-05 the proceedings in terms of the decision in GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited v. ITO (supra) should resume de novo before the AO. 23. The Revenue does not dispute that there was a failure to furnish the reasons for reopening of the assessment. Therefore, there was a clear violation of the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited v. ITa (supra). The decision of this Court in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) reiterates that the it is mandatory for the AO to supply reasons for reopening the assessment and this has to be done within a reasonable time. It was further observed by this Court as under:- " .... a notice under Section 148 without the communication of the reasons therefore is meaningless inasmuch as the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time. In a case, where the notice has been issued within the said period of six years, but the reasons have not furnished within that period, in our view, any proceedings pursuant thereto would be hit by the bar of limitation inasmuch as the issuance of the notice and the communication and furnishing of reasons go hand-in-hand. The expression within a reasonable period of time as used by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited (supra) cannot be stretched to such an extent that it extends even beyond the six years stipulated in Section 149." 24. Mr. Hossain sought to distinguish the decision in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) on the ground that the Assessee in that case had filed its return which was scrutinized and an order was

ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 11 passed in the first instance under Section 143(3) of the Act whereas in the present case the Assessee has not filed return at all. In the considered view of this Court, this is not a distinguishing factor. The Court is unable to discern any reason why the AO failed to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment to the Assessee. It is not in dispute that the assessee had made a request in writing for the reasons in respect of each of the AY s in question. Merely because the Assessee did not repeat the request cannot mean that the Assessee waived its right to be provided the reasons. The proviso to Section 292 BB (I) of the Act makes it clear that there is no estoppel against an Assessee on account of participating in the proceedings as long as it has raised an objection in writing regarding the failure by the AO to follow the prescribed procedure. 25. The Court is also of the view that no comparison can be drawn with a situation where in the course of the assessment proceedings an opportunity to examine a witness is denied. That was the situation in Income Tax Officer v. M. Pirai Choodi (supra). There the Supreme Court was of the view that if there was a failure by the AO to provide the Assessee an opportunity of cross-examination of a witness, the Assessee could have gone in appeal. In that case it was found that "the Assessee had failed to avail statutory remedy." Here there is no failure by the Assessee to raise objections at every stage of proceedings. 26. The decision in CIT v. P.C. Chemicals (supra) is also not of help to the Revenue. Those appeals of the Revenue were dismissed by this Court. 27. The decisions of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Trend Electronics (supra) and CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited ManulMH1I805/20 II support the case of the Assessee. In the last mentioned decision, the Bombay High Court held as under: "It is axiomatic that power to reopen a completed assessment under the Act is an exceptional power and whenever revenue seeks to exercise such power, they must strictly comply with the prerequisite conditions viz., reopening of reasons to indicate that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment which would warrant the reopening of an assessment. These recorded reasons as laid down by the Apex Court must be furnished to the Assessee when sought for so as to enable the Assessee to object to the same before the Assessing Officer. Thus, in the absence of reasons being furnished, when sought for would make an order passed on reassessment bad in law. The recording of reasons (which has been done in this case) and furnishing of the same has to be strictly complied with as it is a jurisdictional issue. This requirement is very salutary as it not any ensures reopening notices are not lightly issued. Besides in case the same have been issued on some misunderstanding/misconception, the Assessee is given an opportunity to point out that the reasons to believe as recorded in the reasons do not warrant reopening before the reassessment proceedings are commenced. The Assessing Officer disposes of these objections and if satisfied with the objections, then the impugned reopening notice under section 148 of the Act is dropped/withdrawn otherwise it is proceeded with further. In issues such as this i.e. where jurisdictional issue is involved the same must be strictly complied with by the authority concerned and no question of knowledge being attributed on the basis fo implication can arrive. We also do not appreciate the stand of the Revenue, that the Respondent-Assessee had asked for reasons recorded only once and therefore, seeking to justify non-furnishing of reasons. We expect the state to act more responsibly.” Conclusion. 28. The Court respectfully concurs with the above view of the Bomb Assessment Year High Court and holds that in the present case the ITAT was right in coming to

ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 12 the conclusion that on account of failure by the AO to furnish reasons for reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Act to the Assessee, the reassessment proceedings stood vitiated I law.” 6. We adopt the above twin detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to annul the impugned re-opening / re-assessment proceedings u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The assessee’s identical former legal ground raised in these three appeals is accepted. His all other substantive grounds on merits are rendered infructuous. 7. These three assessee’s appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court 15/05/2019 Sd/- Sd/- (लेखा सद�य) (�या(यक सद�य) (Dr.A.L. Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) Kolkata, *Dkp, Sr.P.S )दनांकः- 15/05/2019 कोलकाता । आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. आवेदक/Assessee-Anjan Kr. Naha, C/o D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhavan, 2 Elgin Road, Kolkat-20 2. राज�व /Revenue-ITO Ward-44(1), 3, Government Place West, Kolkata-700001 3. संबं4धत आयकर आयु5त / Concerned CIT Kolkata 4. आयकर आयु5त- अपील / CIT (A) Kolkata 5. 8वभागीय �(त(न4ध, आयकर अपील�य अ4धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड= फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, /True Copy/ सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ4धकरण, कोलकाता ।