2023 (3) TMI 408 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - unexplained cash credit - information received from Investigation Wing that the assessee had received an accommodation entry - Nobody is appearing on behalf of the assessee ever - HELD THAT - Nobody is appearing on behalf of the assessee despite several notices and several notices have returned unserved. As can be seen from the records, the appellant neither appeared before the AO during the assessment proceedings to explain the cash credit nor filed any explanation on the same during the appellate proceedings. Same was the case when the original assessment was done by the ld. AO after issuing a notice u/s 148. Though the matter was set aside by Hon'ble ITAT to the AO after the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the then CIT(A), yet the appellant did not appear before the ld. AO during the reassessment proceedings as a result of such setting aside of the earlier assessment. In various letters sent during the appellate proceedings by post, the appellant has only stated that the assessment was completed without jurisdiction and has neither elaborated the same nor has submitted a justification behind saying so. At the same time, no explanation for the cash credit was filed either before the AO or during the appellate proceedings. Thus authorities below have taken a correct view of the matter and the order of the ld. CIT (A) is well reasoned and does not need any interference - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO)
2. Compliance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act
3. Opportunity to inspect the file and reasons for notice under Section 148
4. Validity of the reassessment notice under Section 148
5. Legal validity of the assessment order dated 14-03-2014
6. Compliance with the law of limitation and statutory notices
7. Adequate opportunity for the assessee in reassessment proceedings
8. Unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.5,16,423/-

Summary of Judgment:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO):
The assessee contended that the AO lacked jurisdiction on the date of passing the order (14-03-2014) as the next date of hearing was fixed for a later date. The appellate tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, stating that the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.

2. Compliance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to state points for determination, decisions thereon, and reasons for the decision as required under Section 250(6). The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had elaborately discussed the issue and relied on several case laws, thus rejecting the challenge.

3. Opportunity to Inspect the File and Reasons for Notice under Section 148:
The assessee claimed that the AO did not provide an opportunity to inspect the file or the reasons for issuing the notice under Section 148. The tribunal noted that despite several opportunities, the assessee did not comply with the AO's requirements or provide explanations for the cash credit.

4. Validity of the Reassessment Notice under Section 148:
The assessee questioned the validity of the notice under Section 148, arguing that the reasons were not provided. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO had sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, and the tribunal upheld this finding.

5. Legal Validity of the Assessment Order Dated 14-03-2014:
The assessee contended that the assessment order dated 14-03-2014 was void and without jurisdiction. The tribunal found that the authorities below had taken a correct view, and the order of the CIT(A) was well-reasoned, thus rejecting the assessee's appeal.

6. Compliance with the Law of Limitation and Statutory Notices:
The assessee argued that the AO did not comply with the law of limitation and statutory notices. The tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, finding that the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.

7. Adequate Opportunity for the Assessee in Reassessment Proceedings:
The assessee claimed that adequate opportunity was not provided during reassessment proceedings. The tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with the AO's requirements despite several opportunities, and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

8. Unexplained Cash Credit Addition of Rs.5,16,423/-:
The assessee failed to provide an explanation for the cash credit of Rs.5,16,423/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, and the tribunal upheld this finding, noting that the assessee did not appear before the AO or provide any explanation during appellate proceedings.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the orders of the lower authorities and confirming the addition of Rs.5,16,423/- as unexplained cash credit. The order was pronounced in the open court on March 9, 2023.

← Previous Next →