2020 (3) TMI 1421 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - eligible reason to believe v/s suspicion - on the basis of AIR information received by the AO that the assessee has deposited cash in the savings bank account various verification letters were issued to the assessee to verify these transactions - HELD THAT - AO reopened the case of the assessee merely on the basis of suspicion that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. It is a settled that notice u/s 148 of the Act cannot be issued merely on the basis of the insufficient compliance to the letters issued by the department. There must be a something which indicates even if it does not establish the escapement of income from assessment. Merely because some further investigations have not been carried out which if made could have led to detection of an income escaping assessment cannot be reason enough to hold the view that the income has escaped assessment. Thus in the present case also the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act merely on the basis of suspicion that the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee has escaped assessment. See BIR BAHADUR SINGH SIJWALI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 HALDWANI 2015 (2) TMI 60 - ITAT DELHI Thus reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO are bad in law and liable to be quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act - Reopening of case based on suspicion of income escaping assessment - Validity of reassessment order - Compliance with statutory conditions and procedures.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Ghaziabad for the assessment year 2010-11. The grounds raised encompassed legal issues and merits. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued only on legal grounds, leading to the dismissal of certain grounds not argued. The key arguments focused on the legality of the reassessment proceedings and order.

2. The case involved an assessee whose income source was agriculture-related. The assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act based on cash deposits in the bank account exceeding the declared income. The AO alleged non-furnishing of ITR and made additions to the income. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, prompting the assessee to appeal before the Tribunal.

3. During the hearing, the Ld. Counsel contended that the reassessment proceedings and order were flawed as statutory conditions were not met. Various documentary evidence was submitted to support this claim. In contrast, the Ld. DR supported the CIT(A)'s order.

4. Upon review, it was noted that the AO initiated reassessment based on suspicion of income escapement, lacking concrete evidence. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to highlight that suspicion alone is insufficient to justify reassessment. The mere existence of cash deposits does not inherently imply undisclosed income.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the reassessment proceedings invalid and ordered their quashing. The decision was influenced by the precedent cited, emphasizing the necessity of concrete reasons, not mere suspicion, for reopening assessments.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal procedures and substantiated reasons in reassessment proceedings.

This judgment underscores the significance of concrete evidence and legal compliance in reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that suspicion alone is inadequate to justify reopening assessments.