Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that it was only in the year 2009, i. e., on March 30, 2009 to be precised that the Assessing Officer issued the section 148 notice. The reopening initiated beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was not sustainable in the absence of the specified amount of taxable income having escaped assessment being recorded in reopening-reasons. Therefore, the reopening was not sustainable. Held that there was no cogent material indicating that the assessees had a one-fifth share each in the trusts’ assets. The assessees’ alleged one-fifth share in the trust balance had neither accrued nor arisen so as to be taxed in the-assessees’ hands. The authorities had erred in law and on the facts in initiating section 148 proceedings against the two assessees culminating in the addition of Rs. 230,71,880 each.  As regards the taxability of amount receivable from discretionary trust and accrual of income,  the  tribunal  referred  CWT v. Estate of Late HMM Vikramsinhji of Gondal (2014) 363 ITR 679 (SC), CIT v. Kamalini Khatau (1994) 209 ITR 101 (SC), Seth Pushalal  Mansinghka (P) Ltd  v.CIT (1967) 66 ITR 159 (SC)

Additional ground reassessment was admitted.  Followed  National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)  and All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 18 ITR 16 / 137 ITD 26 (SB)(Mum)(Trib).(AY.2002-03)