2018 (12) TMI 907 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - unexplained cash deposits in the savings bank account - reliance of AIR information - reasons to believe V/S reasons to suspect - Held that - The reasons recorded did not make out a case that the assessee was engaged in some business and the income from such a business had not been returned by the assessee. In the case at hand also, the reasons recorded do not contain any such recital. The Tribunal held that the factum per se, of deposits in the bank account of the assessee could not be made the basis for holding the view that income had escaped assessment, over-looking that the sources of the deposits need not necessarily be the income of the assessee; and that as such, the reasons recorded were not sufficient to believe escapement of income rather, they were reasons to suspect escapement of income, which was not enough for issuance of a notice u/s 148. See BIR BAHADUR SINGH SIJWALI VERSUS ITO 2015 (2) TMI 60 - ITAT DELHI Finding merit in the grievance raised by the assessee, the reasons recorded by the AO for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act are held to be invalid, being reasons not sufficient to form belief of escapement of income, based on vague information. All proceedings pursuant thereto, including notice issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, the assessment order and the impugned order are thus annulled and cancelled. No other issue survives for adjudication, nor was anything else argued. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of reassessment framed under section 147/143(3)
- Justification of notice issued under section 148
- Estimation and addition of presumptive income under section 44AD
- Addition of peak credit in savings bank account
- Addition of deposits in another bank account
- Validity of additions made by AO and upheld by CIT(A)
- Addition of income from agriculture

Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment: The AO framed reassessment under section 147/143(3), which was challenged by the appellant on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for issuing the notice under section 148 were based solely on cash deposits in the appellant's savings bank account. The Tribunal cited precedents like 'Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO' to emphasize that mere bank deposits do not necessarily indicate escaped income. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons recorded were not sufficient to believe in the escapement of income, thereby annulling the reassessment.

2. Justification of Notice under Section 148: The appellant contended that the notice under section 148 was unjustified due to a lack of material to form a belief of income escapement. The Department argued that the basis for the notice was the cash deposits in the appellant's account, which were unexplained. However, the Tribunal reiterated that the source of deposits need not be the appellant's income and that suspicion alone is not enough to issue a notice under section 148.

3. Estimation of Presumptive Income: The appellant challenged the estimation and addition of a sum as presumptive income under section 44AD. The Tribunal did not find the estimation justified and ordered the deletion of the addition as it was contrary to facts and law.

4. Addition of Peak Credit in Savings Bank Account: The AO estimated the profit based on the peak credit in the appellant's savings bank account. The Tribunal found the addition unjustified and ordered its deletion, as there was no reason to estimate the profit higher than the peak credit.

5. Addition of Deposits in Another Bank Account: The authorities added deposits in another bank account as income under section 69 of the IT Act. The Tribunal found the explanation provided for these deposits satisfactory and held that the addition was not justified, ordering its deletion.

6. Validity of Other Additions: The Tribunal reviewed other additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). It found these additions contrary to facts and law, ordering their deletion as they were not justified.

7. Addition of Income from Agriculture: An addition was made for income from agriculture, which the appellant claimed was ancestral in nature and did not pertain to them. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the addition was contrary to the law and ordered its deletion.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all the appellant's appeals, annulling the reassessment and deletions of various additions made by the authorities. The judgment emphasized the importance of sufficient grounds and evidence to support the initiation of reassessment proceedings and additions to the appellant's income.