2022 (11) TMI 1207 - AT - Income Tax

AO jurisdiction for conducting assessment proceedings as well as passing assessment order - change in the Assessing Officer of the similar rank - HELD THAT - It can be seen that the assessee has filed return of income on 15.08.2015 with AO, Ward 7(1)(5), Ahmedabad, PAN No. of the assessee is AGKPT6559M and the notice which was issued by the respective ITO was also that of Ward 7(1)(5). Merely change in the Assessing Officer of the similar rank cannot be stated as not having jurisdiction for conducting assessment proceedings as well as passing assessment order. Therefore, all the contentions taken by the assessee which were incorporated in the original grounds of appeal as well in the revised grounds of appeal as well as the submissions before us does not stand at all in the eyes of law. Hence, all the contentions of the Ld. AR are rejected. Unexplained cash deposit and gift received from assessee s wife as well as failed to prove genuineness of the other cash gifts - Documents produced during the assessment proceedings are not reflecting the source of cash deposits whether the gifts are genuine or not. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR has also not produced any additional evidence to that extent and also not demonstrated from whom the gifts were received and whether the gifts are genuine or not. Therefore, on merits the assessee s case does not stand and, therefore, ground no.nil to the extent of merits in Column Nos.7, 8 9 stand dismissed Other grounds mentioned in original Form No.36 and in the revised grounds both are alleging the authorities in personal capacity which is uncalled act of the professional who is guiding his respective client i.e. assessee. Despite giving several opportunities to the Ld. AR, the Ld. AR was adamant to concise the grounds of appeal on the jurisdiction point as well as on merit point. The observation made hereinabove related to the jurisdiction point and merits should be taken into account as entirely deciding the appeal on merit as well as law. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Premature order under Section 143(1).
2. Lack of revenue proceedings before judicial proceedings.
3. Judicial proceedings based on change of opinion without proper reasoning.
4. Authority to issue notice under Section 142(1).
5. Acceptance of case by succeeding Assessing Officer.
6. Proper inquiry into the matter.
7. Issuance of show cause notice without authority.
8. Addition of Rs. 16,56,000/- without proper basis.
9. Validity of assessment proceedings.
10. Directions to initiate penalty proceedings.
11. Charging of interest on reassessed income.
12. Violation of constitutional rights.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Premature Order under Section 143(1):
The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) passed a premature order under Section 143(1) within three months without examining the facts. The Tribunal found that the AO had sufficient time to conduct inquiries and gather necessary facts, and the order was passed after considering all relevant details. Therefore, the contention of the premature order was rejected.

2. Lack of Revenue Proceedings Before Judicial Proceedings:
The appellant contended that no revenue proceedings were initiated before judicial proceedings. The Tribunal held that the AO followed the due process as per the law, and the change in the Assessing Officer did not affect the jurisdiction or the validity of the proceedings.

3. Judicial Proceedings Based on Change of Opinion:
The appellant claimed that the judicial proceedings were initiated merely based on a change of opinion without additional grounds. The Tribunal observed that the AO had valid reasons for initiating proceedings and the change in opinion was based on the direction of the decision support system (CASS).

4. Authority to Issue Notice Under Section 142(1):
The appellant questioned the authority of the AO to issue a notice under Section 142(1). The Tribunal found that the AO had the necessary authority and the notice was issued as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

5. Acceptance of Case by Succeeding Assessing Officer:
The appellant argued that the succeeding AO mechanically accepted the case without proper examination. The Tribunal held that the change in the AO did not affect the jurisdiction and the proceedings were conducted as per the law.

6. Proper Inquiry into the Matter:
The appellant claimed that no proper inquiry was conducted into the matter. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted a thorough inquiry and the appellant failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the cash deposits.

7. Issuance of Show Cause Notice Without Authority:
The appellant contended that the show cause notice was issued without proper authority. The Tribunal held that the AO had the authority to issue the notice and the proceedings were conducted as per the law.

8. Addition of Rs. 16,56,000/- Without Proper Basis:
The appellant argued that the addition of Rs. 16,56,000/- was made without proper basis. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide satisfactory evidence for the cash deposits and the gifts received. The addition was made based on the lack of evidence and was upheld by the Tribunal.

9. Validity of Assessment Proceedings:
The appellant claimed that the assessment proceedings were invalid and illegal. The Tribunal held that the proceedings were conducted as per the law and the change in the AO did not affect the validity of the assessment.

10. Directions to Initiate Penalty Proceedings:
The appellant questioned the AO's authority to direct the initiation of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal found that the AO had the authority to initiate penalty proceedings based on the reassessed income.

11. Charging of Interest on Reassessed Income:
The appellant contended that the AO was not empowered to charge interest on the reassessed income. The Tribunal held that the AO had the authority to charge interest as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

12. Violation of Constitutional Rights:
The appellant claimed that various constitutional rights were violated. The Tribunal found no merit in these claims and held that the proceedings were conducted as per the law.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessment order and the addition of Rs. 16,56,000/-. The Tribunal found that the AO followed due process and the appellant failed to provide satisfactory evidence for the cash deposits and gifts received. The Tribunal also rejected the claims of violation of constitutional rights and found that the proceedings were conducted as per the law.