2017 (6) TMI 138 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - audit objection relied upon - unexplained cash deposits - Held that - From the very reason recorded by the AO for reopening of assessment, it is clear that the same is on the basis of audit objection and no independent opinion has been formed by the AO while recording reasons. From the audit objection, it is clear that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings has particularly enquired about cash deposit and assessee explained that this cash deposit in bank account is out of the business of sale of scrap on which account the income has been included in the return of income for AY 2009-10. Even the AO in his comments to assessee s objection to reasons has clearly admitted that the entire information was before him but he could not go into details in view of time barring assessment and workload. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of re-assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1:
The first issue in this appeal concerns the validity of the re-assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The original assessment for the assessment year 2009-10 was completed under section 143(3) on 23-12-2011. However, the assessment was later reopened based on an audit objection regarding cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The audit party highlighted discrepancies in the cash deposits, leading to the reopening of the assessment. The AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Act and subsequently framed a re-assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147, adding the cash deposits as undisclosed income. The assessee objected to the reopening, arguing that the AO did not thoroughly examine the explanations and documents due to time constraints and workload pressure. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's action, stating that there were sufficient reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, thereby justifying the reopening. The Tribunal, however, analyzed the case law precedent, including decisions by the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court, emphasizing the requirement of tangible material to justify reopening an assessment. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment, concluding that there was a lack of tangible material to support the belief that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, thereby annulling the reassessment order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of tangible material to support the reopening of the assessment, as required by legal precedents. The Tribunal's ruling emphasized the importance of substantial evidence and justification for initiating a reassessment under the Income Tax Act, ultimately leading to the quashing of the reassessment order in favor of the assessee.