2023 (3) TMI 98 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - The authorities below failed to give set off of such withdrawals. Considering the fact that there was cash withdrawals during the year under consideration, the addition is restricted to a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, as the probability of utilization of withdrawals cannot be ruled out The grounds raised against legality of reopening on the basis that there was no failure on the part of assessee, it is recorded by the AO that no return was filed by the assessee and there was huge transaction in shares. The grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. Thus, addition made in respect of cash deposits is sustained to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/- and in respect of share transactions, the addition made by the Revenue is hereby confirmed. The grounds of appeal are partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment after four years.
2. Jurisdiction of the assessing officer.
3. Change of opinion by the assessing officer.
4. Failure to disclose material facts.
5. Cash deposits and share transactions.
6. Adequate opportunity of hearing.
7. Merit of the case.

Reopening of Assessment after Four Years:
The appellant argued that the assessment was reopened after the four-year limitation period, citing various legal precedents. The appellant contended that there was no failure on their part to disclose material information, and the assessment was time-barred. However, the Tribunal dismissed these objections, noting that the appellant had not filed a return and there were significant share transactions involved. The grounds raised against the legality of reopening were rejected, and the addition related to cash deposits was upheld to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000.

Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer:
The appellant raised concerns about the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, stating that the officer who issued the notice did not have the authority to do so. The appellant argued that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal did not find merit in these contentions and proceeded with the assessment based on the facts presented.

Change of Opinion by the Assessing Officer:
The appellant highlighted that the assessing officer had previously dropped proceedings after accepting the appellant's explanations. Subsequently, a different officer reopened the assessment, indicating a change of opinion. The appellant argued that the reassessment was based on imagination and fallacious assumptions. The Tribunal acknowledged the sequence of events but ultimately confirmed the addition made by the revenue in relation to share transactions.

Failure to Disclose Material Facts:
The appellant contended that they had provided all necessary information and that the assessing officer did not have valid grounds for reopening the assessment. The appellant raised objections to the lack of recording of oral objections and the vague reasons for reassessment. Despite these arguments, the Tribunal upheld the addition related to cash deposits, considering the lack of return filing and significant transactions.

Cash Deposits and Share Transactions:
The case involved cash deposits in the appellant's bank account and substantial share transactions during the relevant financial year. The assessing officer made additions under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and calculated net profits on a presumptive basis. The appellant contested these additions, providing explanations for the cash deposits and share transactions. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, reducing the net profit rate applied by the assessing officer.

Adequate Opportunity of Hearing:
The appellant raised concerns about not being provided with a reasonable opportunity of hearing during the assessment proceedings. The appellant argued that this lack of opportunity rendered the appellate order contrary to natural justice norms. However, the Tribunal did not find this argument compelling and proceeded with the assessment based on the available records and submissions.

Merit of the Case:
The assessing officer failed to adequately verify the available records and consider the oral and written submissions provided by the appellant. The appellant emphasized various aspects, such as cash deposits in multiple transactions and cash withdrawals, to support their case. The Tribunal acknowledged these submissions but ultimately upheld a portion of the additions made by the revenue. The appellant's objections and arguments regarding the merit of the case were considered, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers all the issues raised in the appeal, providing insights into the legal arguments presented and the Tribunal's findings on each matter.