2022 (2) TMI 188 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Cash deposits in an account other than a current account - HELD THAT - We do not think that any case has been made out to interfere with the impugned notice or the impugned order. In this case based on the material on record we cannot say that the respondents had no reason to believe that income had indeed escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. The circumstance about the discovery of cash deposits against the assessee s PAN number and the circumstance that for this assessment year the assessee chose not to file any return at all were sufficient as well as relevant to the formation of reason to believe. Therefore no case is made out to interfere with the impugned notice and the impugned order. Though we are dismissing the present petition we make it clear that none of the observations in this order should either influence or affect the assessment proceedings taken out in pursuance of the impugned notice - respondents examine the matter in some detail including the defense of the petitioner herein in the context of the letter subsequently issued by the Goa Urban Cooperative Bank. The assessment will have to be completed by adverting to all this material no doubt after verifying the same in accord with the law. To this extent therefore even the petitioner will not be seriously prejudiced. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice seeking to reopen assessment and disposal of objections for Assessment Year 2017-18.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contested a notice dated 30.03.2021 and Order dated 16.08.2021 aiming to reopen assessment for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner argued that there was no evidence to support the claim that any income of the assessee had escaped assessment. It was highlighted that the petitioner did not have a bank account with the Goa Urban Cooperative Bank during the relevant assessment year. The petitioner emphasized the distinction between the firm and its partner as separate legal entities under the Income Tax Act, citing legal precedents to support the contention that the objection raised by the assessee should have been considered before issuing the impugned order.

2. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that a substantial cash deposit of nearly ?4.39 crores was made in the Goa Urban Cooperative Bank using the petitioner firm's PAN number, despite no income tax returns being filed by the firm for the relevant assessment year. The respondents contended that the objection raised by the petitioner was duly considered, and based on the evidence of the cash deposit and the failure to file returns, there was a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.

3. The Court examined the reasoning provided in the impugned order dated 16.08.2021, which outlined the basis for reopening the assessment. It was noted that the failure to disclose correct income chargeable to tax was attributed to the assessee, justifying the reopening of the assessment within the prescribed time limit. The Court referred to legal principles emphasizing that at the stage of issuing a notice to reopen an assessment, the assessing officer is only required to form a prima facie view based on the available material.

4. The Court concluded that, based on the evidence of the substantial cash deposit against the petitioner firm's PAN number and the failure to file returns, the respondents had sufficient grounds to believe that income had escaped assessment for the relevant year. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that no interference was warranted with the impugned notice and order. However, the Court clarified that its decision should not impact the ongoing assessment proceedings, urging a detailed examination of all relevant material, including the subsequent letter from the bank, to ensure a fair assessment process without prejudice to the petitioner.

5. In summary, the Court upheld the validity of the notice seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2017-18, emphasizing the importance of considering the available evidence and forming a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment before issuing such notices. The dismissal of the petition underscored the Court's stance that the respondents had valid grounds to initiate the reassessment process based on the material at hand.