SHRI KASHMIR SINGH S/O SHRI SHINGARA SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), AMRITSAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A. No. 23/(Asr)/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Sh. Kashmir Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, S/o Sh. Shingara Singh, Ward-5(3), VPO – Mirankot Kalan, Amritsar (Punjab) Ajnala Road, Amritsar PAN: CSEPS 1035F

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Trilochan Singh P S Khalsa, DR

Date of Hearing: 16.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022

ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed

against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2,

Amritsar, dated 29.11.2017, which in turn arises from the order passed by

the Assessing Officer u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961

(“Act”, for short), dated 27.12.2016 for Assessment Year 2009-10.

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 2

grounds of appeal before us :

“1. That the Appellate Order passed by Worthy CIT(A) u/s 250(6) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts on records and this illegality pervades all other grounds of appeal.

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 3

Without prejudice to above contention about the orders being illegal, null and void.

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 4

the assessee had during the year under consideration made cash deposits

aggregating to Rs.1,38,47,000/- in his bank accounts, viz. (i) SB A/c No.

81002200011166 with Syndicate Bank Amritsar : Rs. 95,00,000; and (ii) SB

A/c No. 8355 with Punjab and Sind Bank, Amritsar: Rs.43,47,000/-, the

case of the assessee was reopened by him and Notice u/s 148 of the Act,

dated 29.03.2016 was served on the assessee vide speed post.

issued on 01/08.08.2016 and served upon the assessee through registered

post. Notice u/s 142(1) was again issued on 29.08.2016 fixing the hearing

of the case on 07.09.2016. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) a/w a ‘Show

cause’ notice (SCN) u/s 274 was issued on 26/27.10.2016. Again notice u/s

142(1) a/w SCN was issued on 16.11.2016 fixing the hearing of the case

on 21.11.2016. All the aforesaid notices were received back undelivered,

for the reason, that the address therein mentioned was incomplete. In

compliance to another notice u/s 142(1) a/w SCN, the assessee though

appeared before the A.O, and his case was adjourned to 07.12.2016, but

on the latter date he failed to put up an appearance. Notice u/s 142(1)

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 5

alongwith a revised SCN u/s 274, dated 19.12.2016 was thereafter issued

and was got served through affixture at the available address of the

assessee. As the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient

opportunities failed to attend the proceedings, therefore, the AO was

constrained to proceed with and frame the assessment vide his order

passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016, determining his total income

at Rs. 3,79,71,240/-.

CIT(A). During the course of the appellate proceedings the assessee

assailed the validity of the reopening of his case on multiple grounds, as

well as challenged the additions made by the AO on merits. In so far the

contentions that were advanced by the assessee as regards the validity of

the reopening of his case, the same did not find favor with the CIT(A) who

upheld the same. As regards the challenge thrown by the assessee to the

merits of the additions, the CIT(A) partly finding favor with the same

scaled down the addition of Rs. 3,79,71,240/- that was made by the AO to

an amount of Rs. 1,84,39,234/-, viz. (i) cash deposit in the bank accounts :

Rs. 1,82,93,187/-; and (ii) interest credited in the bank accounts : Rs.

1,46,047/-.

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 6

carried the matter in appeal before us.

parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material

available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that

have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR in order to support his

respective contentions. Before us the Ld. AR has challenged the validity of

the reopening of the assessee’s case on multiple grounds, viz. (i) that a

perusal of the ‘reasons to believe’ on the basis of which the case of the

assessee had been reopened clearly reveals non-application of mind by the

AO to the material available on record; (ii) that the Pr. CIT had granted his

approval/sanction for reopening the case of the assessee in a mechanical

manner, i.e, without any application of mind; (iii) that the notice u/s 148 of

the Act was never received by the assessee prior to framing of the

reassessment in question; and (iv) that the AO had taken recourse to

parallel assessment proceedings and, by issuing two separate notices u/s

148 of the Act to the assessee, both of which were backed by separate

‘reasons to believe’ wrongly assumed jurisdiction for reopening his case.

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 7

by the AO for reopening of his case, therefore, we shall first deal with the

same. As stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, we find that the AO in the

case before us had taken recourse to a parallel or dual set of reassessment

proceedings, i.e, by issuing two separate Notices u/s 148 of the Act, dated

29.03.2016, both of which were issued on the basis of separate and

distinct ‘reasons to believe’. For the sake of clarity, we may herein observe,

that while for one Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, was issued by the AO,

i.e., ITO, Ward-5(2), Amritsar, for the reason, that the assessee had failed

to prove the source of the cash deposit of Rs.43.47 lacs in his bank A/c

(Page 33-34 of APB); while for on the same date another Notice u/s 148,

dated 29.03.2016 was issued by the same A.O, i.e, ITO, Ward-5(2),

Amritsar to the assessee, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to

prove the source of the cash deposit of Rs. 95,00,000/- in his another bank

A/c (Page 38 & 39A of APB). As is discernible from the record, the Pr.

Commissioner of Income-Tax-II, Amritsar, had separately approved both

the ‘reasons to believe’ recorded by the same AO and, on the same date,

i.e., on 28.03.2016 (Page 32 & 39 of APB). On a further perusal of the

record, we find that in so far the Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.216 that was

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 8

issued by the AO, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the

source of the cash deposits of Rs.43.47 lac (supra) in his bank account, the

same had culminated into an assessment vide an order passed by the AO

u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3), dated 08.11.2016 (Page 84-85 of “APB”), wherein

the AO taking cognizance of the fact that the cash deposits of Rs. 43.47 lac

(supra) in question were sourced out of the agriculture income of the

assessee, had thus refrained from drawing any adverse inferences and

making any addition in his hands. However, we find that after framing of

the aforesaid assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) dated 08.11.2016, the AO

had thereafter proceeded with the reassessment proceedings that were

separately initiated by him vide Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, for the

reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of cash deposit of

Rs. 95 lac (supra) in his bank A/c, and had thereafter framed the impugned

assessment in question vide his order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated

27.12.2016, determining the assessee’s income at Rs. 3,79,71,240/-. At

this stage, we may herein observe, that as the reassessment proceedings

in the case of the assessee for the same year, i.e A.Y 2009-10, were

initiated by the AO, i.e., ITO, Ward-5(2), Amritsar, on the basis of two

Notices u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, both of which were backed by separate

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 9

reasons to believe, viz. (i) Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 that was

issued for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of

the cash deposit of Rs.43.47 lacs in his bank A/c (Page 33-34 of APB); and

(ii). Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 that was issued by the same A.O,

i.e, ITO, Ward-5(2), Amritsar, for the reason, that the assessee had failed

to prove the source of the cash deposit of Rs. 95,00,000/- in his bank A/c

(Page 38 & 39A of APB), therefore, it is absolutely incorrect on the part of

the A.O, as stated by him at Page 1 – Para 2 of his impugned assessment

order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016, that a Notice u/s 148,

dated 29.03.2016 was issued by him, for the reason, that as per

information available with his office, the assessee, viz. Shri. Kashmir Singh

s/o. Sh. Shingara Singh, VPO. Mirakot Kalan, Amritsar had made cash

deposits of Rs. 95,00,000/- in Saving Bank A/c No. 81002200011166

maintained with Syndicate Bank, Amritsar and cash deposits of Rs.

43,47,000/- with Punjab and Sind Bank, Amritsar vide account no. SB-8355

during the year under consideration. As observed by us hereinabove, the

A.O had not issued one Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 as regards the

aforesaid unproved cash deposits in the assessee’s bank accounts, which

as per law he ought to have done, but in fact had issued two separate

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 10

Notices u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, both of which were backed by separate

‘reasons to believe’. As both the Notices u/s 148 haver been issued on the

same date, i.e, on 29.03.2016, therefore, it would be important to

determine as to which of them was issued prior to the other. As the

necessary sanction/approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-II,

Amritsar u/s 151 of the Act had been obtained by the A.O, i.e, ITO, Ward-

5(2), Amritsar, on the same date, i.e, on 28/03/2016, therefore, the fact

that as to which of the Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 was issued prior

to the other cannot be gathered therefrom (Page 32 & 39 of APB). Also, as

both the Notices u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 are stated to have been issued

on the same date, therefore, the fact as to which of them followed the

other cannot also be gathered therefrom. But then, the respective dispatch

numbers mentioned on the face of the aforesaid notices would assist us in

gathering as to which Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 was issued prior to

the other. As per the Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 that was issued by

the AO, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of

the cash deposits of Rs.43.47 lac (supra) in his bank account [which

thereafter had culminated into an assessment vide an order u/s 147 r.w.s.

143(3), dated 08.11.2016] (Page 34 of “APB”), we find that the reference

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 11

number therein mentioned is 11480 a/w EP 37062924 1 IN (bar

code), while for as per the Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 that was

issued by the same A.O, i.e, ITO, Ward-5(2), Amritsar to the assessee, for

the reason, that he had failed to prove the source of the cash deposit of

Rs. 95,00,000/- in his bank A/c (Page 38 of APB) the reference number

therein mentioned is 11517 a/w EP 37063115 7 IN (bar code). On the

basis of the aforesaid reference numbers mentioned on the face of the

aforementioned Notices u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, it can safely be

inferred that the Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 that was issued by the

AO, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of the

cash deposits of Rs.43.47 lac (supra) in his bank account was issued

anterior/prior to the other notice. Apart from that, the fact that the

reopening of the assessee’s case u/s 147 of the Act, for the reason, that he

had failed to prove the source of the cash deposits of Rs.43.47 lac (supra)

in his bank account had thereafter culminated into an assessment u/s 147

r.w.s. 143(3), dated 08.11.2016, while for the impugned reassessment

proceedings taken recourse to by the A.O u/s 147 of the Act, qua the

failure of the assessee to prove the source of cash deposit of Rs.

95,00,000/- in his bank A/c, had culminated into the impugned assessment

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 12

u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016, i.e, much subsequent thereto, also

supports our aforesaid conviction. At this stage, we may herein observe,

that neither there is anything discernible from the records, nor brought to

our notice by the ld. D.R which would prove otherwise. We, thus, in the

backdrop of our aforesaid observations, are of the considered view, that

the impugned Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016 that was issued by the AO,

for the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of the cash

deposits of Rs. 95 lac (supra) in his bank account, was issued at a point of

time when reassessment proceedings had already been initiated on the

basis of an another Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, that was issued, for

the reason, that the assessee had failed to prove the source of cash

deposits of Rs.43.47 lac (supra) in his bank account.

assailed before us the validity of the impugned assessment that was

framed by the AO vide his order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated

27.12.2016, i.e., on the basis of the reopening of his case vide Notice u/s

148, dated 29.03.2016, i.e., at a point of time when another Notice u/s

148, dated 29.03.2016, i.e, of even date, was pending assessment, and

thereafter had culminated into an assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 13

08.11.2016. In sum and substance, the controversy involved in the present

appeal as regards the validity of the reopening of the assessee’s case lies

in a narrow compass, i.e., as to whether or not the impugned order passed

by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016, i.e, the assessment framed

by him on the basis of the impugned Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016,

that was issued during the pendency of the reassessment proceedings that

were already initiated by him vide another Notice u/s 148, dated

29.03.2016, could be sustained?. In our considered view, the AO during

the pendency of the reassessment proceedings which were initiated by him

by issuing a notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, qua the unexplained cash

deposits of Rs. 43.47 (supra) in the assessee’s bank account, which

thereafter had culminated into an assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated

08.11.2016, was clearly divested of his jurisdiction from initiating another

reassessment proceeding by issuing Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, on

the ground, that the assessee had failed to explain the source of the cash

deposit of Rs. 95 lac (supra) in his another bank A/c. We are of a strong

conviction that an AO is precluded from simultaneously embarking upon

two set of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, in respect of an assessee, for

the same year. In our considered view, now when the AO held a bonafide

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 14

belief that the assessee had failed to explain the source of cash deposits of

Rs. 43.47 lacs (supra) and Rs. 95 lac (supra) in his bank accounts, then, he

ought to have initiated reassessment proceedings on the basis of his

aforesaid belief by issuing one Notice u/s 148 of the Act, and could not

have taken recourse to initiation of piecemeal reassessment proceedings

qua both the aforesaid issues. Apart from that, we are of the considered

view, that during the pendency of the reassessment proceedings initiated

in the case of an assessee u/s 147 of the Act, the AO is divested from

assuming jurisdiction and proceeding with another set of reassessment

proceeding qua the same year in the hands of the said assessee. Be that

as it may, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the second

set of impugned reassessment proceeding initiated by the AO in the case

before us, which thereafter had culminated into the impugned order u/s

144 r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016. Our aforesaid conviction is supported by

the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Marwadi

Shares and Finance Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

SCA/17698/2017, dated 07.03.2018, wherein it was observed as under :

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 15

has referred to several decisions in this regard which we have noted. Reference to only one of them would be sufficient. This Court in case of Aditya Medisales Ltd (supra) had occasion to take into consideration various judgements of High Courts and Supreme Court in background of facts which were thus. The petitioner had filed the return of income for the assessment year 2005-06. Notice of reopening the assessment issued by the Assessing Officer. Such notice was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court. High Court had admitted the petition and granted interim relief staying further proceedings pursuant to such notice. When the petition was pending, the Assessing Officer issued yet another notice under Section 147 of the Act seeking to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the same assessment year, however, on the basis of independent reasons possibly upon availability of fresh material. This second notice of reopening was challenged on various grounds including on the ground that in face of the pendency of the first notice of reopening, there could not be successive second reopening of the assessment. The Court held and observed as under:

"7. There cannot be two parallel assessments based on two notices. As long as first assessment is not completed, question of reassessment would not arise. Once a notice is issued under section 148 of the Act, it triggers initiation of proceedings for assessment or reassessment of income which may have escaped assessment earlier. During such assessment, any income which may come to the notice of Assessing Officer may also be brought to tax. Till this assessment is not completed, it would not be possible for him to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Until the assessment, be it original or reopened, is pending before the Assessing Officer, the question of issuing notice for reopening would not arise. As noted, in case of Ranchhoddas Karsondas (supra), the Supreme Court had taken a view that till the assessment proceedings are pending, it cannot be stated that there was escapement of income. To our mind, there is no distinction whether the pending assessment is pursuant to the return filed by the assessee originally or in response to the notice of reassessment issued by the Assessing Officer. In either case within the contours of the provisions for assessment, the assessment of the income of the assessee at the hands of the Revenue is at large.

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 16

or during the assessment proceedings which may have a bearing on income escaping assessment. The suggestion that if additional information is available with the Revenue later on, it is always open for the Assessing Officer to withdraw the first notice and issue second notice including both sets of reasons, would fail in such an example. In the example cited, the Revenue would have a difficult choice to make whether to rest on the notice already issued and the reasons recorded for the same which would deprive the revenue of the additional grounds to support reopening or after withdrawing the first notice to issue a fresh notice which would be beyond a period of four years and thereby sacrifice the reasons already recorded, which would not sustain the test of failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. However, such difficulty in making a choice, would not govern the interpretation of statutory provisions or would permit us to enlarge the scope of reassessment by holding that the second notice of reopening pending reassessment would also be permissible. We do not discern any concept of alternative or protective notice of reassessment. In the result, impugned notice of reopening is bad in law. This is despite the fact that the first notice came to be quashed on the ground that on the basis of reasons recorded, it cannot be stated that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 17

facts and attendant circumstances. His contention was that the Revenue had, all along, intended to withdraw the notice and the fact, that such notice was abandoned, was sufficient to establish withdrawal thereof. We, however, hold a slightly different belief. A notice of reopening which is once issued would remain in operation unless it is specifically withdrawn, quashed or gets time barred. First instance would be at the volition of the Assessing Officer as the person who had issued the notice. He can recall the notice for valid reasons and may even issue a fresh notice which is not impermissible in law. Nevertheless, there has to be an action of withdrawal. Mere intention, a stated intention or even an intention which is otherwise put in practice cannot be equated with withdrawal of the notice. By mere intention to abandon the proceedings arising out of the notice, the Assessing Officer cannot bring about the desired result of withdrawing the notice. The notice was either withdrawn or is stood as it is, may be without any follow up action on part of the Assessing Officer.”

As observed by us hereinabove, the Hon’ble High Court in its aforesaid

order had relied on its earlier order passed in the case of Aditya Medisales

Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), (2016) 73

Taxmann.com 197 (Guj). Also, a similar view had earlier been taken by the

Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Kishan Leela,

ITA No. 107 and 109 of 2006, dated 09/10/2006. In its aforesaid order, it

was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that second reassessment

proceedings could not be initiated while the first reassessment proceedings

were pending. It was therein observed, that once the reassessment

proceedings are pending, then, the entire assessment is open and the

same is not confined to the reasons recorded by the A.O for assuming

jurisdiction. Relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of

Rajasthan in the case of Ram Kishan Leela (supra), the ITAT, Delhi ‘G’

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 18

Bench in the case of Mrs. Sarla Shreedharan Vs. ITO (2007) 112 TTJ 220

(Del), had observed, that pending reassessment proceedings on the earlier

notice, reassessment made on the basis of a subsequent notice was illegal

and liable to be quashed. Backed by the aforesaid settled position of law,

we are of the considered view, that now when the reassessment

proceedings were initiated by the A.O, i.e, ITO, Ward-5(2), Amritsar, vide

Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, for bringing to tax the unexplained cash

deposits of Rs. 43.47 (supra) in the assessee’s bank account that as per

him had escaped assessment (which thereafter had culminated into an

assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated 08.11.2016), he was clearly

divested of his jurisdiction from initiating another set of reassessment

proceeding, i.e, the impugned reassessment proceeding in question by

issuing another Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, on the ground, that the

assessee had failed to prove the source of cash deposit of Rs. 95 lac

(supra) in his another bank A/c. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts r.w

the settled position of law, we are of the considered view, that the

reassessment proceedings initiated by the A.O, vide the impugned Notice

u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, i.e, during the pendency of the other

reassessment proceeding for the year under consideration, cannot be

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 19

sustained. We, thus, are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the

validity of the reassessment proceedings, i.e, the proceedings that had

culminated into the impugned assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated

27.12.2016.

Amritsar despite the aforesaid serious infirmity, wherein the AO, i.e, ITO,

Ward-5(2), Amritsar had on the same day, i.e, 28.03.2016 approached hi

for his sanction/approval for taking recourse to parallel reassessment

proceedings against the assessee, i.e, for the same year and, he had in a

most mechanical manner, on the same day, i.e, on 28.03.2016 granted his

sanction/approval as contemplated in sub-section (1) of section 151 of the

Act, i.e, for both the reassessment proceedings that were taken recourse to

by the A.O. On a perusal of the sanction granted by the Pr. Commissioner

Of Income Tax-II, Amritsar, we find that on both the occasions the same

has been granted by him in a mechanical manner by simply scribbling, as

under :

(A). As regards reopening u/s 147 (for cash deposits of Rs. 43.47 lac) –Page 32 of APB:

Yes – Satisfied Fit Case 12. Comments of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Amritsar that he is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Income Tax Sd/-

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 20

Officer that it is a fit case for issue u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 28/3 (R.I.S. GILL, IRS) Dated : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Amritsar

(B). As regards reopening u/s 147 (for cash deposits of Rs. 95 lac) –Page 39 of APB:

On a perusal of the aforesaid manner in which the approval/sanction had

been granted by the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Amritsar, we may

herein observe, that the same in the backdrop of the facts involved in the

case before us, i.e., granting of sanction/approval by him to the parallel set

of reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO, on the same date, and

for the same year, therein clearly reveals the non-application of mind by

him. Not only the initiation of parallel reassessment proceedings by the A.O

is prohibited under law, but what is beyond our comprehension is that the

Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Amritsar, instead of correcting the

A.O, had most casually granted his approval on both the instances, i.e,

approved the parallel reassessment proceedings that were initiated by the

A.O, on the same date, i.e, 28.03.2016, for the same assessment year. It

may be so, that the ld. Pr. CIT too might have remained under a mistaken

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 21

belief as regards the validity of such parallel reassessment proceedings, but

what disturbs us is the fact, that while sanctioning the issuance of the

second Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, which as observed by

hereinabove had culminated into the impugned assessment order u/s 144

r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2016, there is no reference or mention about the

approval/sanction that was already granted by him on the earlier occasion,

and the same therein leads to serious doubts as regards application of

mind by him at the time of grant of approval to the impugned reasons to

believe. Considering the totality of the facts before us, we are of a strong

conviction that the sanctioning authority, i.e, the Pr. Commissioner of

Income-tax-II, Amritsar had granted his sanction u/s 151 of the Act, in a

mechanical manner, i.e, without application of mind to the facts of the case

and the material available on record.

concur with the lower authorities as regards the validity of the

reassessment order passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated

27.12.2016, for the reason, that the same were initiated at a point of time

when reassessment proceeding vide another Notice u/s 148, dated

29/03/2016, i.e, as regards the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 43.47 lac

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 22

(supra) already stood triggered and were pending at the relevant point of

time and, had thereafter culminated into an assessment u/s 147 r.w.s

143(3), dated 08.11.2016; nor are able to persuade ourselves to subscribe

to the mechanical manner in which the approval under sub-section (1) of

Sec. 151 of the Act had been granted by the approving authority, i.e., the

Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Amritsar, therefore, quash the

impugned assessment order passed by the AO u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated

27.12.2016.

147, dated 27.12.2016 for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his

part, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and therein adjudicating the

other contentions on the basis of which the Ld. AR had assailed the validity

of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO for framing the impugned

assessment, as well as those that have been advanced by him as regards

the merits of the additions so made, which, thus, are left open. The

Grounds of appeal no. 1 to 11 are disposed off in terms of aforesaid

observations.

pressed.

ITA No. 23/Asr/2018 23

aforesaid observations.

Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962, by placing the details on the notice board.

Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M.L. Meena) (Ravish Sood) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Date: 21.02.2022 **GP/Sr./PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T