2020 (1) TMI 1274 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - eligibility of reasons to believe - eligible material forming the basis of the Assessing Officer's belief of escapement of income - cash deposits in the savings bank account - HELD THAT - In 'Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali' 2015 (2) TMI 60 - ITAT DELHI is specific that what has to be examined is whether the fact of deposits, per se, in the bank account of the assessee could be the basis of holding the view that the income has escaped assessment. It is only belief of escapement of income, which would enable the AO to reopen a completed assessment. Herein, however, the Assessing Officer himself is of the belief that what has escaped assessment is the bank deposits of ₹ 13,19,000/-. Now, these deposits, as also held in 'Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali' (supra), by themselves, do not lead to income being taxed in the assessee's hands. No decision contrary to 'Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali' (supra) has been cited. It is hereby held that in the present case, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were not reasons sufficient enough to enable reopening of the completed assessment. The reassessment proceedings and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, culminating in the impugned order, are held to be null and void.- Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) without proper hearing.
2. Legality of re-assessment proceedings under section 143(3)/147.
3. Validity of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for re-assessment.
4. Adequacy of reasons for belief of income escapement.
5. Issuance of mandatory notice under section 143(2).
6. Addition of ?5,46,127/- as suppressed income.
7. Merits of addition of ?5,46,127/-.
8. Source of funds transferred to overdraft account.
9. Evaluation of material and information on assessment record.
10. Assumption of facts for addition of ?5,46,127/-.
11. Compliance with principles of natural justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal of Appeal by CIT(A) Without Proper Hearing
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity for a hearing. The Tribunal acknowledged this procedural lapse, emphasizing that the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh order after providing the appellant with due opportunity to be heard.

2. Legality of Re-assessment Proceedings Under Section 143(3)/147
The appellant contended that the re-assessment proceedings were neither initiated nor concluded as per the legal provisions. The Tribunal examined the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and found that the initiation of proceedings under section 147 was based on the need to verify the source of cash deposits, which does not amount to a requisite satisfaction for belief of income escapement.

3. Validity of Reasons Recorded by the Assessing Officer for Re-assessment
The Tribunal scrutinized the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which stated the need to verify the source of cash deposits amounting to ?13,19,000/-. The Tribunal referred to the case of 'Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO' to highlight that reasons must indicate income escaping assessment rather than a mere need for inquiry.

4. Adequacy of Reasons for Belief of Income Escapement
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not suffice for reopening the assessment. It emphasized that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material and the belief of income escapement, which was lacking in this case. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons were more indicative of a need for further investigation rather than a firm belief of income escapement.

5. Issuance of Mandatory Notice Under Section 143(2)
The appellant argued that the mandatory notice under section 143(2) was not issued after filing the return in response to notice under section 148. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue as the reassessment proceedings were already deemed null and void due to inadequate reasons for reopening the assessment.

6. Addition of ?5,46,127/- as Suppressed Income
The appellant challenged the addition of ?5,46,127/- on the grounds that it was not based on the reasons recorded for escapement of income. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the addition was not justified as the reassessment itself was invalid.

7. Merits of Addition of ?5,46,127/-
The appellant contended that the addition was unsustainable as the source of the said amount did not represent the appellant's income. The Tribunal did not address this issue separately, as the reassessment proceedings were already quashed.

8. Source of Funds Transferred to Overdraft Account
The appellant argued that the overdraft account was squared up by transferring funds from certain parties, which did not constitute income. The Tribunal did not specifically address this argument, given that the reassessment was invalidated.

9. Evaluation of Material and Information on Assessment Record
The appellant claimed that the addition was made without properly appreciating the material and information on record. The Tribunal did not need to address this issue separately due to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.

10. Assumption of Facts for Addition of ?5,46,127/-
The appellant argued that the addition was based on wrongful assumptions of facts. The Tribunal did not separately address this issue due to the overall invalidation of the reassessment proceedings.

11. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice
The appellant contended that the order was contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal implicitly upheld this contention by quashing the reassessment proceedings due to procedural and substantive deficiencies.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were null and void due to inadequate reasons for reopening the assessment. The reassessment proceedings were quashed, and no further adjudication was required on the merits of the additions made.