9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1285 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - unexplained deposits - Held that - In this case, two separate reasons have been recorded for reopening. This itself shows non-application of mind. Thus, have to necessarily conclude that the reasons were recorded without application of mind. Therefore, on this ground itself, the reopening of assessment has to be held bad in law by following the judgements of the jurisdictional High Court in the case Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2011 (7) TMI 361 - Delhi High Court ) wherein it was held that notice issued based on a report from Investigation Wing is invalid where the AO does not examine the evidence. The order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO (2015 (2) TMI 60 - ITAT DELHI) refer to the proposition that mere deposit in bank cannot lead to the conclusion, or even inference, that income has escaped assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment under section 148. 2. Addition of alleged unexplained deposits. Issue 1: Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 148: The appeal challenged the order of the CIT(A) regarding the reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 based on information that the assessee had deposited cash in two separate bank accounts during the financial year 2007-08. The Tribunal found that two separate reasons were recorded for reopening, indicating a lack of application of mind by the AO. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment must be based on a valid reason formed after examining the evidence. The Tribunal referred to judgments by the jurisdictional High Court and emphasized that the AO must apply his mind to the materials before issuing a notice under section 148. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the reopening of assessment was bad in law and quashed the same. Issue 2: Addition of Alleged Unexplained Deposits: The appeal also contested the addition of ?31,94,750 as alleged unexplained deposits without considering the material on record, including detailed submissions filed by the assessee. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, observed that mere deposits in a bank account cannot automatically imply that income has escaped assessment. The Tribunal referred to a decision by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal to support this proposition. Relying on the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessment was bad in law and allowed the appeal of the assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal found the reopening of assessment invalid due to a lack of application of mind by the AO and quashed the same. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the addition of alleged unexplained deposits was not justified based on the mere presence of deposits in the bank account. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 09.09.2016.
|
