2020 (5) TMI 385 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - basis of information with regard to cash deposit in a bank account - HELD THAT - In the present case the information was received by the Assessing Officer and the proper reasoning has been recorded after taking necessary approval as per the mandate of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. AR could not point out that there is lack of reasoning or no necessary approval taken from the higher authorities. The case laws submitted by the Ld. AR also factually different from the present case as in the present case, the assessee has not filed any return prior to issuance of Section 148 notice and has not given any details to the AO as relates to cash deposits. CIT(A) was right in holding that there is no infirmity in the reopening proceedings. Ground No. 2 is dismissed. No valid notice u/s 143(2) - HELD THAT - From the perusal of records, the Ld. AR could not point out that the notice was not duly served upon the assessee. In fact, the records shows that the notice was served to the assessee, but the assessee could not attend the assessment proceedings which leads to passing of Assessment Order u/s 144 of the Act. The reliance of case laws by the Ld. AR will not help in the present case, as the assessee could not demonstrate that the notice was not served to him at his address mentioned in the records. Approval/satisfaction as required u/s 151 is not proper and valid in law - HELD THAT - In the present case the information was received by the Assessing Officer and the proper reasoning has been recorded after taking necessary approval as per the mandate of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. AR could not point out that there is lack of reasoning or no necessary approval taken from the higher authorities. The case laws submitted by the Ld. AR also factually different. The approval is not mechanical but is in conformity with the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer which describes the nature of cash transactions and its relevance to the escapement of tax liability on behalf of the assessee. Thus, the CIT(A) was right in holding that there is no infirmity in the re-opening proceedings. Ground No. 4 and 5 are dismissed. Admission of additional evidence - HELD THAT - In the present case, the assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act which shows that the AO has not seen any evidences while making additions. Thus, we are admitting the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A). We further find that it is just and proper to remand back the issue on merit to the file of the AO in the present case for proper adjudication after taking cognizance of the additional evidences. Needless to say, the assessee be given proper opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Ground No. 1 is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Issues Involved:
1. Admission of additional evidence
2. Validity of proceedings under Section 147 and notice under Section 148
3. Validity of assessment order due to lack of notice under Section 143(2)
4. Approval/satisfaction under Section 151
5. Compliance with principles of natural justice
6. Addition of unexplained cash deposits under Section 68
7. Consideration of explanations and evidence by the Assessing Officer
8. Observations and findings in the assessment order
9. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c)
10. Legality of interest charged under Section 234A, 234B, and 234C

1. Admission of Additional Evidence:
The appeal raised concerns regarding the CIT(A) not admitting additional evidence. The AR cited relevant judgments emphasizing the importance of admitting crucial evidence for substantial justice. The Tribunal acknowledged the failure of the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication, ensuring the principles of natural justice are followed.

2. Validity of Proceedings under Section 147 and Notice under Section 148:
The AR challenged the initiation of proceedings under Section 147, arguing that cash deposits in a bank account do not necessarily indicate income escapement. The Tribunal noted that proper reasoning and approval were obtained before reopening the case, distinguishing it from previous cases cited. The CIT(A) decision to uphold the reopening proceedings was deemed valid.

3. Validity of Assessment Order due to Lack of Notice under Section 143(2):
The AR contended that the assessment order was flawed due to the absence of a valid notice under Section 143(2). Citing relevant judgments, the AR argued that the failure to issue such notice was fatal to the reassessment order. However, the Tribunal found that the notice was duly served, dismissing the appeal on this ground.

4. Approval/Satisfaction under Section 151:
The AR raised concerns about the validity of approval/satisfaction under Section 151, highlighting discrepancies in the approval document. Despite the DR's defense of the approval process, the Tribunal found the approval to be in line with the requirements of the law, dismissing the appeal on these grounds.

5. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The appeal also questioned the compliance with principles of natural justice in the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal, after thorough consideration, found no lack of reasoning or necessary approval in the reopening proceedings, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the adherence to natural justice principles.

6. Addition of Unexplained Cash Deposits under Section 68:
The CIT(A) sustained an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The AR argued against this addition, but the Tribunal did not find merit in the contentions, leading to the dismissal of this ground of appeal.

7. Consideration of Explanations and Evidence by the Assessing Officer:
The appeal raised concerns about the Assessing Officer ignoring explanations, evidence, and materials provided by the assessee. However, the Tribunal found no substantial evidence to support this claim, leading to the dismissal of this ground of appeal.

8. Observations and Findings in the Assessment Order:
The AR contested the observations and findings in the assessment order as irrelevant, baseless, and unjustified. Yet, the Tribunal found no substantial basis to overturn these findings, resulting in the dismissal of this ground of appeal.

9. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(l)(c):
The AR argued against the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c). However, the Tribunal did not find sufficient grounds to challenge this aspect, leading to the dismissal of this ground of appeal.

10. Legality of Interest Charged under Section 234A, 234B, and 234C:
The appeal questioned the legality of interest charged under Section 234A, 234B, and 234C. The Tribunal did not find substantial reasons to delete the interest charged, resulting in the dismissal of this ground of appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding certain issues back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication while dismissing other grounds of appeal based on the detailed analysis of each issue involved in the judgment.

← Previous Next →