2016 (5) TMI 94 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on deposits made in the bank account - appointment of handwriting expert - Held that - The handwriting expert engaged by the Assessing Officer has compared the signature of the assessee with the summons dated December 13, 2010, which is highly doubtful and could not be given any credence. When two different reports of the handwriting experts were available on record, i.e., one engaged by the Assessing Officer and the two engaged by the assessee and when both gave different versions, it would have been better to refer the matter to the Government handwriting expert for examining the correctness of the matter. Despite request made by the assessee in this regard before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), no steps have been taken to verify the handwriting of the assessee. Since the relevant documents for opening of a new bank account have not been brought on record and no comparison has been made with the same, therefore, the Assessing Officer has failed to bring sufficient evidence on record to justify the findings that the assessee opened the said bank account under her signature. Considering the above, it is clear that there is doubt in the version of the Revenue-Department to prove that the assessee has opened the bank account in question. Therefore, no liability can be put up on the assessee for deposits made in this bank account of ₹ 41,31,432. We, therefore, do not find any justification to sustain the orders of the authorities below in making the addition of ₹ 41,31,432. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:

1. Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition of Rs. 41,31,432 on account of unexplained deposits in bank account No. 5060 in SBI, Kamla Nagar, Agra.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147:

The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proceedings were initiated based on a complaint received by the Department alleging that the assessee owned an illegal bank account No. SB 5060 in the name of "Sushna" at the State Bank of India, Kamla Nagar, Agra. The Assessing Officer (AO) had reason to believe that income amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs had escaped assessment, leading to the issuance of a notice under section 148. The AO completed the assessment on December 31, 2007, with a total income of Rs. 25,94,370 against the returned income of Rs. 94,366.

The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT)-II, Agra, found the order dated December 31, 2007, erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, setting it aside under section 263 of the Act and directing a fresh assessment. During the reassessment, the assessee's objection regarding the reopening under section 147 was rejected, as it had been addressed in earlier proceedings and could not be raised again.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of reopening was not relevant since the addition on merits was deleted. However, it was observed that the reopening was done in the original assessment proceedings under section 143(3)/147, completed on December 31, 2007, and could have been challenged in earlier proceedings. The present proceedings arose from the CIT's order under section 263, making the challenge to reopening academic and unnecessary for further adjudication.

2. Addition of Rs. 41,31,432 on Account of Unexplained Deposits:

The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 41,31,432, which the AO attributed to unexplained deposits in the bank account No. 5060, allegedly operated by the assessee. The AO relied on a handwriting expert's report, which concluded that the signatures on the cheques from the account matched those of the assessee. The assessee denied ownership or operation of the account and provided reports from two other handwriting experts supporting her claim.

The Tribunal found significant procedural lapses in the AO's approach, including the failure to refer the matter to a Government handwriting expert and reliance on a private expert without proper authorization. The AO did not produce the bank account opening form or any other documentary evidence linking the assessee to the account. Statements from bank officials also failed to establish the assessee's connection to the account.

The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to provide cogent evidence connecting the assessee to the bank account No. 5060. The lack of crucial documents like the account opening form and specimen signatures, and the conflicting handwriting expert reports, led to the conclusion that the addition of Rs. 41,31,432 was unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted the addition.

Conclusion:

The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 41,31,432 was deleted due to insufficient evidence linking the assessee to the bank account in question. The issue of reopening the assessment was deemed academic and not adjudicated further. The order was pronounced in the open court on February 2, 2016.

← Previous Next →