9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1377 - AT - Income TaxValidity of the proceedings under section 148 - unexplained cash deposits - eligibility of reasons to believe - non independent application of mind - tangible material - Held that - After going through the reasons recorded by the ITO, Ward-2, Rewari, it of the view that there is no nexus between the prima facie inference arrived in the reasons recorded and information; the information was restricted to cash deposits in bank account but there was no material much less tangible, credible, cogent and relevant material to form a reason to believe that cash deposits represented income of the assessee; that even the communication dated 24.1.2012 could not be made a basis to assume jurisdiction in view of the fact that such an enquiry letter is an illegal enquiry letter and thus cannot be relied upon; that the proceedings initiated are based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion and therefore, the same are without jurisdiction; that the reasons recorded are highly vague, far-fetched and cannot by any stretch of imagination lead to conclusion of escapement of income and there are merely presumption in nature
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) post-reopening of the case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Proceedings under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The primary issue in this appeal is the validity of the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reopening of the assessment was based on AIR information indicating that the assessee had made cash deposits of ?10,80,000 in his bank account. The AO issued a notice under Section 148 after the assessee did not respond to an earlier query notice. The Tribunal scrutinized the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the case. It was noted that the AO relied solely on the AIR information without examining the details of the bank account or the nature of the deposits. The Tribunal emphasized that mere information from the AIR, without a detailed examination and application of mind, is insufficient to justify reopening under Section 148. The Tribunal stated, "Without going to the contents of the entries in the bank account concerned, merely deposits cannot be treated as income escaping assessment within the meaning of Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." The Tribunal referred to several precedents, including the cases of Munni Devi and Bir Bahadur Singh, where similar reasons for reopening were deemed invalid. The Tribunal reiterated that the reasons recorded must indicate a direct nexus between the material and the belief that income has escaped assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's reasons amounted to mere suspicion rather than a bona fide belief of income escapement, thereby invalidating the reopening of the assessment. 2. Additions Made by the Assessing Officer Post-Reopening: Post-reopening, the AO made three additions to the assessee's income: a) Addition on account of cash deposits: ?10,80,000. b) Addition on account of disallowance of deduction under Section 54B: ?17,96,500. c) Addition on account of interest: ?54,851. The total income was assessed at ?29,31,350 against the returned income of Nil. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. Given the Tribunal's decision to quash the reopening under Section 148, the additions made by the AO became infructuous. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of these additions since the foundational basis for the reassessment itself was invalidated. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, concluding that the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 was invalid due to the lack of a bona fide belief and insufficient application of mind by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to judicial guidelines and proper procedures in reopening assessments, as highlighted in the case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were rendered academic and infructuous. The order was pronounced in the open court on 09.10.2017.
|
