9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1599 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessee not filed return of income u/s 139(1) - AO on the basis of AIR information found that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to more than ₹ 10,00,000/- in his bank account - borrowed satisfaction - non independent application of mind by AO - HELD THAT - The provision of Section 147 of the Act requires forming a belief on tangible material which should provide live link i.e. the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. In the case before us, the material which was available with the AO was AIR information which in our considered view does not establish the fact that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. See BIR BAHADUR SINGH SIJWALI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, HALDWANI 2015 (2) TMI 60 - ITAT DELHI AO has not applied his mind to reach to the conclusion that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. The AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act merely on the basis of AIR which in our considered view is not sufficient material for initiating the proceedings under section 147 of the Act. - decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition of unexplained cash deposits in undisclosed bank account. Issue 1: Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 147: The Appellate Tribunal considered the challenge to the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the AO initiated proceedings without forming a prima facie belief for escapement of income, as required by law. The AO relied on AIR information indicating cash deposits exceeding ?10,00,000 in the assessee's bank account. The Tribunal noted that the material available did not establish that the income had escaped assessment. Citing a Delhi Tribunal case, it emphasized that bank deposits alone do not necessarily constitute undisclosed income. The Tribunal held that the AO did not have sufficient material to initiate proceedings under Section 147, thus quashing the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the issue raised on merit became irrelevant, and the Tribunal allowed the appeal. Issue 2: Addition of Unexplained Cash Deposits: The appeal also challenged the addition of ?12,32,500 as unexplained cash deposits in an undisclosed bank account. The assessee argued that the authorities erred in upholding the addition without proper evidence. The CIT(A) was criticized for not considering the submissions and evidence presented by the appellant. The Tribunal reviewed the grounds of appeal and additional grounds, noting the lack of evidence supporting the addition. It observed that the authorities failed to establish the unexplained nature of the cash deposits. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of tangible material to support such additions. Ultimately, due to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings, the issue of unexplained cash deposits was deemed inconsequential, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal at Ahmedabad addressed the validity of reopening the assessment under Section 147 and the addition of unexplained cash deposits in an undisclosed bank account. The Tribunal found the reopening of assessment invalid due to insufficient material supporting the belief of income escapement, thereby quashing the reassessment proceedings. As a result, the issue of unexplained cash deposits was rendered moot, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.
|
