2017 (11) TMI 1976 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - as argued No valid notice issued - Assessee submitted notice was issued by the ITO Ward-2 (4) Meerut who had no jurisdiction on the case of the assessee - HELD THAT - The notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the ITO Ward-2 (4) Meerut for initiating the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the said notice the assessment has been framed by the ITO Baraut who had not issued any therefore the assessment framed U/S 144 of the Act by the ITO Baraut was void. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the AO who framed the assessment U/S 144 of the Act never issued any notice for initiating the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act therefore in the absence of any valid notice being issued by the AO the present assessment order was not valid accordingly the same is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
2. Rejection of additional evidence under rule 46A
3. Rejection of explanation for cash deposits in bank account
4. Jurisdictional issue regarding assessment proceedings under Section 147

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The appellant challenged the addition of ?23,99,000 under Section 69, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68. The appellant contended that the conclusions drawn were unjust and inconsistent with the evidence on record. The appellant provided various documents, including sale deeds and certificates from sons, to support the source of cash deposits. The CIT(A) was criticized for not considering the explanations offered by the appellant and for making assumptions without sufficient evidence.

Issue 2: Rejection of additional evidence under rule 46A
The appellant contested the rejection of additional evidence filed during the appellate proceedings under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in law by dismissing the additional evidence, which could have supported the explanation for the cash deposits in the bank account. The appellant highlighted the importance of considering all relevant evidence in the appellate process.

Issue 3: Rejection of explanation for cash deposits in bank account
The appellant's explanation regarding the sources of cash deposited in the bank account was not accepted by the CIT(A). The appellant presented sale deeds, certificates from sons, and other evidence to prove the legitimate sources of the deposited cash. However, the CIT(A) disregarded this evidence and drew conclusions without proper verification. The appellant raised concerns about the CIT(A) ignoring crucial documents and making unfounded assumptions about the appellant's possessions.

Issue 4: Jurisdictional issue regarding assessment proceedings under Section 147
The jurisdictional issue regarding the assessment proceedings under Section 147 was raised by the appellant. The appellant argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an Assessing Officer who lacked jurisdiction over the case. The appellant contended that the assessment conducted by a different Assessing Officer was invalid due to the lack of a valid notice. Legal precedents were cited to support the argument that jurisdictional errors render assessment proceedings void.

In conclusion, the ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that the assessment order under Section 144 was invalid due to jurisdictional issues. The tribunal held that the absence of a valid notice for initiating proceedings under Section 147 by the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment rendered the assessment order void. The decision was based on legal principles and precedents emphasizing the importance of jurisdiction in assessment proceedings.