9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1002 - AT - Income TaxValidity of the Re-opening of assessment u/s 147 - reason to believe to initiate the proceedings u/s 147 - addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - AO has questioned the cash deposit amounting to ₹ 38 lakhs. I also find that the Assessing Officer has categorically mentioned that no return of income was filed for Assessment Year 2012-13. The bank deposit details shows that total cash found to be deposited on various dates amounts to ₹ 28.50 lakhs. This means that the AO is contradicting himself. Secondly, the Assessing Officer says that no return of income was filed whereas, at second para of his order, the Assessing Officer himself states that the assessee has furnished copy of return of income electronically filed on 24.12.2013 declaring total income of ₹ 5,84,130/-. Reasons given by the Assessing Officer are devoid of any application of mind since not only the Assessing Officer assumed incorrect figure of cash deposits but also completely ignored the fact that return for the year under consideration was already filed on 24.12.2013. These facts can be gathered from the body of the assessment order itself - assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Validity of assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Questioning the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. Analysis: 1. The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The contention was that the Income Tax Officer lacked a valid reason to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act. 2. The second challenge was on the merits, specifically questioning the addition of ?20,40,848/- made under section 68 of the Act. 3. The assessment proceedings under section 147 were initiated based on information received from the Income Tax Officer. The Assessing Officer recorded a satisfaction note mentioning cash deposits by the assessee without filing a return of income for the relevant assessment year. 4. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act was challenged by the assessee as being devoid of proper application of mind. 5. The Tribunal analyzed previous judicial decisions such as Sunrise Education Trust and Ashwani Kumar cases, emphasizing that the mere existence of cash deposits in a bank account does not necessarily indicate undisclosed income. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of reasons indicating income escaping assessment rather than mere suspicion. 6. Citing the legal position established in various cases, including Bahadur Singh Sijwali, the Tribunal concluded that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were insufficient to justify reopening the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, thereby annulling the assessment order. 7. Given the quashing of the assessment order, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. 8. The judgment was pronounced on 19.11.2019 by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI, with the appeal being allowed in favor of the assessee.
|
