The revenue urges firstly that recourse to appraisal report to reopen the concluded assessments was sufficient and the justification for the notices impugned. It is urged that in the present case, the assessee did not co-operate during the re-assessment proceedings which led to additions under Section 144 of the Act. Learned counsel for the revenue sought to highlight the fact that the assessee never questioned the re-opening of the assessments even before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - (CIT (A) and that the ITAT‟s decision in this regard, proceeding to plainly consider the issue of jurisdiction without considering the merits of the appeals was erroneous. As is evident from the “reasons to believe”, there is a mere advertence to the appraisal report dated 12th June, 1996 received by revenue. The least that the AO should and ought to have done to invoke his powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act was to indicate, in the briefest possible terms was, what was or what were the issues that merited re-opening of the previously concluded assessments. The judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator 320 ITA 561 is conclusive that in case the revenue wishes to seek re-opening of the assessments previously concluded, there must be cogent reasons based on tangible materials existing outside the record. Given the facts of this case, the appraisal report dated 12.03.1996 did constitute material outside the record and was, therefore, concluded and tangible. Nevertheless, the A.O was obliged to spell out as to material existed in the appraisal report that merited re-opening of the assessments of these years.
