2024 (8) TMI 871 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - unexplained cash deposits - assessee has submitted that the assessee is regularly filing the income tax return and taking into account the accumulated cash in hand for the past so many years coupled with the opening cash in hand as on 01.04.2016 as well as the income earned prior to announcement of demonetization scheme, the assessee had sufficient cash in hand to explain the source of alleged cash deposit. HELD THAT - Consideration the old age of the assessee and that regular return of income is being filed by her, justice will prevail if the assessee is granted one more opportunity. Therefore restore the issue raised on merits about explaining the source of alleged cash deposit to the file of A.O for deciding it afresh for which reasonable opportunity of being heard to be provided to the assessee and also Ld. A.O is directed to entertain the additional evidence to be filed by the assessee for explaining the source of alleged cash deposits. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and not to seek any adjournment without reasonable cause and should furnish the requisite details to the A.O at the earliest so that Ld.A.O can decide in accordance with the law. Accordingly the finding of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and Ground of appeal allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of re-assessment notice under section 151 of the Act.
2. Legality of notice issued under section 148 by the Assessing Officer.
3. Non-issuance of mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act.
4. Validity of the order passed under section 144 r/w section 147.
5. Fair opportunity of hearing granted by lower authorities.
6. Addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act.
7. Restoration of the issue regarding the source of alleged cash deposit.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the re-assessment notice dated 23/03/2020 for A.Y 2017-18, claiming it was invalid and without jurisdiction due to the absence of prior mandatory approval of the specified authority under section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed Grounds No. 1 to 4 as the appellant did not press these grounds.

2. The legality of the notice issued under section 148 by the Assessing Officer was questioned, alleging it was illegal, without jurisdiction, and barred by time limitation. The Tribunal considered the submissions and directed the matter to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer if the appellant can provide necessary explanations for the alleged deposit.

3. The appellant contended that the re-assessment was passed without issuing the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, rendering the entire proceeding void-ab-initio. However, the Tribunal did not address this ground specifically in the judgment.

4. The appellant argued that the order passed under section 144 r/w section 147 was illegal, void, and in breach of the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal did not find merit in this argument.

5. The appellant raised concerns about fair opportunity of hearing granted by lower authorities and framed an ex-parte order in violation of natural justice. The Tribunal considered the appellant's submissions and decided to grant one more opportunity to the appellant to explain the source of the alleged cash deposit.

6. The Assessing Officer made an addition under section 69A of the Act regarding cash deposited during demonetization. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to entertain additional evidence from the appellant for explaining the source of the alleged cash deposits.

7. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the finding of the CIT(A) and granting the appellant one more opportunity to present necessary details to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely cooperation from the appellant in providing the requisite information for a fair decision.

This judgment highlights the significance of providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to explain the source of alleged transactions and the need for compliance with procedural requirements in re-assessment proceedings.