2019 (6) TMI 245 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - wrong facts in reasons recorded - validity of reasons to believe - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - A perusal of the quoted reasons show that there is a reference of query letter dated 11.01.2012 and 25.01.2012. There is also a reference that no reply has been received from the assessee till date. Thereafter, the AO observed that since cash was found to be deposited in the savings bank account. He had reasons to believe that the source of the above cash deposits is income from undisclosed sources and, accordingly, reassessment proceedings were initiated. In our considered view, the aforementioned reasons are devoid of any application of mind since the AO completely ignored the fact that the return for the year under consideration was already filed on 18.01.2010. AO further ignored the fact that vide letter dated 24.02.2012 the assessee has explained that he is a regular assessee and produced the copy of Income-tax return filed in the office of ITO, Ward 39(2). These facts can be gathered from the body of the assessment order itself in the first para on page 1 of the assessment order. See SUNRISE EDUCATION TRUST VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) 2018 (2) TMI 1471 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , SH. ASHWANI KUMAR, VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2016 (2) TMI 1159 - ITAT AMRITSAR (SMC). and BIR BAHADUR SINGH SIJWALI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, HALDWANI 2015 (2) TMI 60 - ITAT DELHI Assumption of jurisdiction by the AO by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law. We, accordingly, quash the notice issued u/s 148, thereby, quashing the assessment order. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Confirmation of addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148:
The assessee challenged the notice issued under section 148 on the grounds of erroneous jurisdiction assumption for reassessment. The reasons for reopening the assessment were based on non-PAN AIR data indicating cash deposits of ?36,64,857 in the assessee's saving bank account. The AO believed this was income from undisclosed sources since no explanation was provided by the assessee. However, it was found that the AO ignored the fact that the assessee had already filed a return on 18.01.2010, and had explained the source of the deposits in a letter dated 24.02.2012. The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were devoid of any application of mind and were based on erroneous premises, as the return was already filed and acknowledged by the department. Citing precedents such as Sunrise Education Trust and Ashwani Kumar, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under section 148, thereby invalidating the reassessment order.

2. Confirmation of Addition Under Section 68:
The solitary grievance in ITA No. 745/Del/2014 was the confirmation of the addition of ?36,64,857 made under section 68 by the CIT(A). Given that the reassessment proceedings were quashed due to invalid notice under section 148, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the addition under section 68. The quashing of the reassessment rendered the addition academic and infructuous.

3. Levy of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c):
In ITA No. 4144/Del/2018, the assessee contested the penalty of ?11.38 lakhs levied under section 271(1)(c) based on the additions made in the reassessment order. Since the reassessment order itself was quashed, the foundation for the penalty was removed. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty, stating that without a valid assessment, the penalty could not stand.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 due to lack of valid reasons and application of mind by the AO. Consequently, the addition under section 68 and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) were rendered invalid. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the AO was directed to delete the penalty.