2022 (9) TMI 86 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - unexplained cash deposits - HELD THAT - Assessee had filed return of income for the year under consideration by way of e-filing. AO recorded wrongly that no ITR was filed by the assessee. It is well-settled that reasons for re-opening of the assessment is the foundation of assumption of jurisdiction for re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 - It is also well-settled that any undisputed fact which goes to prove the reasons for re-opening of the assessment is incorrect, the re-opening of assessment fails the test of law hence, deserves to be quashed. In the present case, it is not disputed by the Revenue that the assessee had filed its return of income through e-mode under different PAN - AO has re-opened the assessment on the ground that the assessee did not file any return of income. It reflects non-application of mind and the assessment was re-opened without verifying the records. It is also not disputed that for the AY 2011-12 also, the assessee had re-opened the assessment and assessed the income of the assessee - the information before the Assessing Authority was regarding cash deposited by the assessee - Therefore, the re-opening of the assessment by the Assessing Authority and treating the entire cash deposits as the income of the assessee, is contrary to the records of the authority itself. Hence, we hereby quash the impugned assessment being illegal and unjustified and delete the addition. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

Issues involved:
1. Reopening of assessment u/s 147A based on non-filing of return of income.
2. Addition of cash deposits as income from undisclosed sources.
3. Justification of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing income.

Issue 1: Reopening of assessment u/s 147A based on non-filing of return of income

In the case, the AO reopened the assessment for AY 2010-11 based on the belief that the assessee had not filed a return of income, despite the assessee submitting evidence of filing the return through e-filing under a different PAN. The CIT(A) upheld the addition of cash deposits as income from undisclosed sources. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's reasoning for reopening the assessment was flawed as the return was indeed filed by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the assessment was reopened without proper verification and quashed the assessment, ruling it as illegal and unjustified.

Issue 2: Addition of cash deposits as income from undisclosed sources

The AO added the entire cash deposit amount as income of the assessee under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) upheld this addition based on the belief that the bank account in question was undisclosed. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the return of income for the relevant year, albeit under a different PAN, and the AO's conclusion of non-filing of return was incorrect. The Tribunal further highlighted discrepancies in the assessment process and concluded that the addition of cash deposits as income was unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment and deleted the addition.

Issue 3: Justification of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing income

The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated by the AO, which the CIT(A) upheld. However, since the impugned assessment order was quashed due to being bad in law, the Tribunal ruled that the penalty proceedings arising from such assessment could not be sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, holding that it could not survive in light of the quashed assessment. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, and the appeal was granted in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, both appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 were allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found the reopening of the assessment and the addition of cash deposits as income to be unjustified due to discrepancies in the assessment process. Additionally, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were deleted as they arose from the quashed assessment order.

← Previous Next →