2021 (5) TMI 917 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - as per the assessment order the notice was returned back with the postal remark that the same was not accepted thus passed assessment order u/s 144 - cash transaction treated as unexplained deposit and treated the same as income under Section 69A - HELD THAT - As regards the contention of notice not properly served by the Assessing Officer the explanation of the postal authorities is that the assessee has refused to take notice is a good service and hence ground Nos. 1 to 7 are dismissed. Addition u/s 69A - From the perusal of the record presented before the CIT (A) it can be found that the explanation given by the assessee relating to sale of land for 36, 90, 000/- was duly reflected in his bank account. The CIT (A) s stand that no explanation was offered relating to the remaining cash deposit to the extent of 26, 20, 000/- is not correct. The cash deposits were made according to the sale deed dated 22.07.2008 and the amount was received on 22.07.2008 and 24.01.2009 which was properly reflected in assessee s bank account. Therefore the CIT (Appeals) was not right in sustaining the remaining amount of cash deposit to the extent of 26, 20, 000/-. Therefore on merits the assessee succeeds and ground Nos. 8 to 13 are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and initiation of reassessment proceedings.
2. Proper recording of satisfaction and reasons by the assessing officer before assuming jurisdiction under Section 147.
3. Approval obtained under Section 151 of the Act before issuing notice under Section 148.
4. Addition made on account of unexplained cash transactions under Section 69A.
5. Applicability of Section 69A on cash deposits in the bank account.
6. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Analysis:

1. The appeals were filed against the order passed by CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 2009-10. The grounds of appeal challenged the legality and jurisdiction of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, alleging improper service and lack of valid reasons recorded by the assessing officer. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the addition made on the basis of AIR information regarding cash deposits in the bank account, treating it as unexplained income under Section 69A. The assessing officer's actions were contested as arbitrary and not based on tangible material.

2. The assessing officer's initiation of reassessment proceedings based on the cash deposits and the subsequent addition made were challenged by the appellant. The appellant, an agriculturist, argued that the cash deposited in the bank account was from the sale proceeds of agricultural land and income, exempt under the Income Tax Act. The appellant contended that the notice under Section 148 was improperly served, rendering the proceedings illegal and against natural justice principles. The CIT (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, recognizing the agricultural nature of the income and the source of the cash deposits.

3. Regarding the penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the appellant disputed the legality and jurisdiction of the notice issued, alleging lack of specific charges and proper satisfaction by the assessing officer. The assessing officer imposed a penalty, which was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) but was subsequently overturned based on the appellant's arguments and the lack of concrete evidence against the explanations provided.

4. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions, noting that the explanation regarding the cash deposits from the sale of agricultural land was supported by evidence and properly reflected in the bank account. The CIT (Appeals) was criticized for upholding a portion of the addition without sufficient basis, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal. The penalty appeal was deemed consequential and not sustainable after the deletion of the addition, resulting in its allowance.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order and fully allowed the appeal against the penalty order. The decisions were based on the lack of proper service of notice, the agricultural nature of the income, and the insufficiency of evidence supporting the addition made by the assessing officer.