2020 (1) TMI 1396 - AT - Income Tax

Reassessment proceedings u/s.147 - assessee has not filed the return of income within the time limit prescribed u/s. 139(1) - specific information with the assessing officer that assessee had deposited cash in her saving bank account maintained with the ICICI Bank - HELD THAT - AO had brought to the notice of the assessee that Income Tax Department has received information relating to financial activities of the assessee and provided information summary pertaining to the PAN of the assessee which also contain the information that during F.Y. 2008-09 there was a cash deposit of more than 10 lacs in the saving bank of the assessee. No compliance was made by the assessee until issuing of notices and reminders as referred in this order. Also brought to the notice of the assessee vide letter that 19-12-2013 that as per information summary pertaining to the TDS there was also transactions with the PAN of the assessee of interest other than the interest on securities. Even the assessee had failed to make compliances with notice u/s. 142(1) of the act issued by the assessing officer. AO had given due opportunity to the assessee but there was no compliance from the assessee. The case laws relying upon by the assessee are distinguishable on facts and are of no help to the assessee in the present case. No reason to interfere in the decision of ld. CIT(A) in justifying the action of the assessing officer in reopening the assessment. Ground nos. 1 2 of the assessee are dismissed. Cash deposited in Bank account - Assessee had disclaimed this bank account without any basis and inexactly stated that it was pertained to travel agent. The assessee has given contradictory statement first at the level of assessing officer that she has earned the cash deposited in the said saving bank account from her business of trading in iron and steel when she has failed to substantiate her claim with relevant evidences then she has made new submission before the ld. CIT(A) that the said saving bank account with ICICI was not opened and operated by her and it was not pertained to her. However, she has failed to substantiate her new claim with any relevant evidences and material. Assessee has herself reported under her signature in her income tax return filed after replying the notices from the assessing officer that the impugned bank account with the ICICI Bank was pertained to her. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we consider that the assessee has failed to substantiate the source of cash deposit detected in the saving bank account, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Grounds of appeal 3 to 6 of the assessee stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147.
2. Addition of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account.
3. Levying interest under section 234B.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147
The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings under section 147, contending that the reasons recorded were not furnished, rendering the assessment bad in law. The assessing officer issued notices and reminders due to non-filing of returns within the prescribed time limit. The assessing officer provided opportunities for compliance, but the assessee failed to respond. The tribunal upheld the reassessment under section 147, stating that the assessing officer had given due opportunity to the assessee, and the case laws cited by the assessee were not applicable. The tribunal found no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A) in justifying the action of the assessing officer in reopening the assessment.

Issue 2: Addition of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account
The assessee declared income but failed to substantiate business activities. The assessing officer observed discrepancies in claimed purchases and non-existent party details. The assessee changed explanations during the appeal, stating the bank account was operated by a travel agent. However, the tribunal noted that the assessee had declared and owned the bank account in the income tax return, contradicting her later claims. The tribunal found the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits, leading to the dismissal of grounds 3 to 6 of the appeal.

Issue 3: Levying interest under section 234B
The tribunal dismissed the ground related to the levy of interest under section 234B, stating that the interest is to be charged mandatorily as per the law.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings under section 147 and the addition of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, including the ground related to the levy of interest under section 234B.