Tribunal quashes reassessment, orders deletion of unverified additions, allows appeals for multiple assessment years.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment due to the absence of a statutory notice under Section 143(2). Additionally, it ordered the deletion of additions made without rejecting the books of account and based on unverified investigation reports. The findings for the assessment year 2012-13 were applied to the appeals for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12, resulting in the allowance of all appeals by the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment due to non-service of statutory notice under Section 143(2).
2. Addition made without rejecting the books of account under Section 145(3).
3. Confirmation and enhancement of additions on account of alleged bogus purchases.
4. Dismissal of the plea for quashing the reopening of assessment under Section 147.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of Reassessment Due to Non-Service of Statutory Notice Under Section 143(2)
The assessee contested the validity of the reassessment framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 on the ground that no statutory notice under Section 143(2) was issued or served. The Tribunal noted that the assessment records did not mention any issuance of such notice. The Department Representative (DR) agreed that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The assessee's counsel cited several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in 'CIT vs. Laxman Dass Khandelwal', which held that Section 292BB does not cure the complete absence of notice. The Tribunal concluded that the absence of notice under Section 143(2) is fatal to the reassessment order, thus quashing the reassessment framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147.

Issue 2: Addition Made Without Rejecting the Books of Account Under Section 145(3)
The assessee argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was without rejecting the books of account under Section 145(3). The Tribunal observed that the AO did not point out any defects in the books of account nor rejected them. The CIT(A) had justified the addition without rejecting the books, stating that the addition was based on information from the investigation wing. The Tribunal noted that the books of account were not rejected even during the original assessment, and the additions were made without any corroborative evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made without rejecting the books of account are not sustainable.

Issue 3: Confirmation and Enhancement of Additions on Account of Alleged Bogus Purchases
The assessee contested the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 1,28,996 on account of Gross Profit (GP) on alleged bogus purchases and the enhancement of the addition to Rs. 21,49,920 by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the AO made the additions based on an investigation report without verifying the details submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided comprehensive details, including purchase/sales particulars, stock register, and trading account of diamonds. The Tribunal concluded that the additions were made without proper verification and solely based on the investigation report, which is not sufficient to establish bogus purchases. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of these additions.

Issue 4: Dismissal of the Plea for Quashing the Reopening of Assessment Under Section 147
The assessee did not press ground No. 4, which contested the reopening of the assessment under Section 147. Consequently, this ground was dismissed as not pressed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 due to the absence of a statutory notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal also ordered the deletion of additions made without rejecting the books of account and based on unverified investigation reports. The findings and conclusions for the assessment year 2012-13 were applied mutatis mutandis to the appeals for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12, resulting in the allowance of all appeals by the assessee.

---