2018 (10) TMI 123 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - unexplained deposits - eligibility of reason to believe - tangible material - Held that - There is no nexus between the prima-facie inference arrived in the reasons recorded and information; the information was restricted to cash deposits in bank account but there was no material much less tangible, credible, cogent and relevant material to form a reason to believe that cash deposits represented income of the assessee; that even the communication dated 24.1.2012 could not be made a basis to assume jurisdiction in view of the fact that such an enquiry letter is an illegal enquiry letter and thus cannot be relied upon; that the proceedings initiated are based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion. The same are without jurisdiction; that the reasons recorded are highly vague, far-fetched and cannot by any stretch of imagination lead to conclusion of escapement of income and these are merely presumption in nature; that it is a case of mechanical action on the part of the AO as there is non-application of mind much less independent application of mind so as to show that he formed an opinion based on any material that such deposits represented income. See KRISHAN KUMAR VERSUS ITO 2017 (12) TMI 1612 - ITAT NEW DELHI - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of notice u/s 148 and subsequent orders passed by AO and CIT(A) for non-fulfillment of mandatory jurisdictional conditions.
2. Addition made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act for alleged unexplained deposit.
3. Addition of capital gain by AO and confirmation by CIT(A) without valid jurisdictional exercise.

Issue 1: Validity of notice u/s 148 and subsequent orders:
The appeal challenged the notice u/s 148, order u/s 147, and CIT(Appeals) order for not meeting mandatory jurisdictional conditions. The AO issued the notice based on cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, alleging income from unexplained sources. The AO made additions without proper explanation from the assessee. The Tribunal referred to a similar case where reassessment proceedings were deemed void due to lack of nexus between reasons recorded and information. The Tribunal held that since no additions were made for which the assessment was reopened, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additional assessments. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, emphasizing the need for tangible, credible evidence to support income escapement. The appeal was allowed based on the legal ground of reassessment proceeding validity.

Issue 2: Addition made u/s 69A for alleged unexplained deposit:
The AO added an amount under section 69A of the Income Tax Act for an alleged unexplained deposit. The assessee contended that the additions were based on invalid reasons and lacked proper jurisdictional exercise. The Tribunal focused on the lack of nexus between the reasons recorded and the information provided, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to establish income escapement. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void due to vague and presumptive reasons, leading to the quashing of the proceedings. The appeal was allowed based on the legal ground of reassessment proceeding validity.

Issue 3: Addition of capital gain without valid jurisdictional exercise:
The AO added a significant amount as capital gain without proper jurisdictional exercise. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal compared the case to a similar one where reassessment proceedings were deemed void due to lack of substantial evidence linking the reasons recorded to income escapement. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of tangible, credible material to support income additions. As no valid additions were made for which the assessment was reopened, the Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make such additional assessments. The reassessment proceedings were quashed, and the appeal was allowed based on the legal ground of reassessment proceeding validity.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues related to the validity of notices, additions made under different sections, and the necessity of proper jurisdictional exercise in tax assessments.