2018 (9) TMI 1402 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - non specification of reasons - addition u/s 68 - other addition apart from information received - Held that - AO himself has noted that assessee had furnished PAN and had also furnished information regarding filing of original return of income. AO wanted assessee to furnish source of cash deposits to which assessee did not reply. As find that AO should have applied his mind from the documents already on record and should have compared the information which was in his possession and only after verifying such information should have arrived at the conclusion regarding escapement of income. The mere deposit of cash in the bank account cannot give rise to a belief of Assessing Officer that income had escaped assessment as the cash deposit can be from any other source other than income. Such satisfaction was needed by the Assessing Officer which has not been made. Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of cash deposits in the bank and has made addition on other grounds which fact is verifiable from assessment order. Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Anita Srivastava vs ACIT 2018 (2) TMI 1774 - ITAT LUCKNOW has held that where a case has been reopened u/s 148 on account of some information and if addition is not made on account of that information then no other addition can be made on any other ground. Thus quash the assessment order as the notice issued u/s 148 is void ab initio and assessment is also void ab initio therefore, all the proceedings are illegal. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Sufficiency of information for forming a belief that income escaped assessment.
3. Legality of additions made on grounds other than those mentioned in the notice under Section 148.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice under Section 148:
The assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued under Section 148, arguing that it did not specify reassessment based on concealed income as per the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal observed that the AO had certain information about cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account but did not apply his mind to the documents already on record, including the assessee’s PAN and return of income. The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd., which held that the notice under Section 148 was void ab initio if there was no independent application of mind by the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal found the notice issued under Section 148 to be invalid.

2. Sufficiency of Information for Forming Belief:
The Tribunal examined whether the information regarding cash deposits was sufficient for the AO to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. It was noted that mere cash deposits in a bank account do not automatically indicate that such deposits constitute undisclosed income. The Tribunal referenced the case of Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. Income Tax Officer, where it was held that the mere fact of deposits in a bank account does not indicate that these deposits are income that has escaped assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must have a reason to believe, rather than suspect, that income has escaped assessment, and such belief must be based on tangible material. The Tribunal concluded that the AO did not have sufficient reasons to form such a belief in this case.

3. Legality of Additions Made on Other Grounds:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the AO could make additions on grounds other than those mentioned in the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal referred to the Lucknow Bench’s decision in the case of Anita Srivastava vs. ACIT, which held that if no addition is made on the grounds for which the case was reopened, then no other additions can be made on different grounds. This principle was supported by several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Jet Airways. In the present case, the AO did not make any addition based on the cash deposits but made additions on other grounds. Therefore, the Tribunal found these additions to be arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the assessment order as the notice issued under Section 148 was void ab initio. Consequently, all proceedings based on such notice were deemed illegal. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 18/09/2018.