M/S.KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

We advert to the assessee's first and foremost legal ground challenging validity of the impugned reopening as not sustainable in law.

The Revenue raises it's vehement technical objection at this stage that such a recourse of an additional ground is not permissible. We find that the assessee has already placed on record the reopening reasons and therefore, we quote NTPC Ltd., vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) and All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd., vs. ACIT [2012] 137 ITD 287 (Mum.) (SB) holding that the tribunal could very well entertain such an additional ground going to root of the matter provided all the facts form part of the record, to reject the Revenue's foregoing objection in very terms.

We next note that the Assessing Officer had recorded the following reasons to believe that the assessee's taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment on 23.09.2014 :-

We had directed the learned CIT-DR to verify the said reopening reasons from the field authority(ies). He submits very fairly that these are the only sec. 148 reopening reasons recorded by the learned assessing authority. That being the clinching case, we are of the considered view that the impugned reopening itself is not sustainable in law. We first of all quote [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. RB Wadkar that such reasons "all required to be read as they recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitute or deletion is permissible. No addition can be 5.1. We keep in mind these settled principles and note that the learned Assessing Officer nowhere recorded as to how and in what manner the assessee's taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment. There is also no whisper about quantification of such an escaped income as well in the above extracted reasons. Case law [2024] 464 ITR 305 (Bom.) Ramna Pinto vs. DCIT; [2019] 413 ITR 400 (Del.) Revolution Forver Marketing (P.) Ltd.,vs., ITO; [2010] 310 ITR 561 (SC) CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd., have settled the issue that a reopening based on such vague reasons, without even indicating the corresponding quantification of the income sought to be re-assessed, is invalid in law. We accordingly, quash the impugned reopening itself in these clinching facts and circumstances which render all other pleadings as infructuous. Ordered accordingly.