2019 (11) TMI 1102 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Reopening on the basis of the information received from Addl. Director Income Tax (Inv.) that the assessee has deposited cash and made unexplained investment - HELD THAT - Reasons given by the AO in notice u/s 148 are merely mechanical and have not given any concrete reasons as to why the re-opening is justified. As regards addition u/s 69, the assessee has given a detail of investments and the fact that the addition of the said amount is already made in the hands of the father of the assessee does not sustain in the hands of the assessee. As regards addition u/s 68 in respect of cash deposits, the Assessing Officer himself admitted that the cheque of ₹ 10,00,000/- has been returned back which was not at all considered by the CIT(A). The reasons are mechanical as all the investment as well as the loans were demonstrated by the assessee as per the audited balance sheet itself. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not right in reopening the assessment which is bad in law and without any justified reasons for the additions. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice u/s 148 and assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147
2. Addition of unexplained investment u/s 69
3. Addition of unexplained cash deposits u/s 68

Issue 1: Validity of notice u/s 148 and assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147:
The appeal challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 148 by the Assessing Officer, contending that it was solely based on information received without proper investigation. The appellant argued that no cash deposits were unexplained based on relevant bank account details provided. Citing precedents, the appellant highlighted instances where jurisdiction u/s 148 was deemed unjustified by the High Court. The Tribunal, referencing a similar case for A.Y. 2007-08, concluded that the reasons for reopening were mechanical and lacked concrete justification, ultimately allowing the appeal.

Issue 2: Addition of unexplained investment u/s 69:
The appellant presented a detailed account of the investment scenario involving a collaboration agreement and subsequent property transactions. It was argued that the investment in question had already been addressed in the father's assessment for a previous year, leading to a claim of double addition. The appellant emphasized that the transaction was related to the collaboration agreement and no new investment was made. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submissions and ruled in favor of the appellant, noting the lack of a direct nexus to the investigation.

Issue 3: Addition of unexplained cash deposits u/s 68:
Regarding the addition of unexplained cash deposits, the appellant clarified that the deposits were accounted for through loans and cheque transactions. It was highlighted that a returned cheque was not considered by the CIT(A), leading to an arbitrary addition. The appellant demonstrated that all investments and loans were properly documented in the audited balance sheet. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contentions, deeming the reassessment unjustified and the additions baseless, ultimately allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on all issues, declaring the appeal allowed and emphasizing the lack of concrete justifications for the reassessment and additions made by the Assessing Officer.