2019 (2) TMI 150 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - addition u/s 68 - reason to believe escapement of income - Held that - As regards non-compliance of section 151(2) of the Act, we find that the Assessing Officer has taken requisite sanction from the competent authority to issue notice u/s. 148, which is placed at record. As regards the satisfaction of the AO, after taking steps to verify the cash deposit, in which the assessee did not cooperate, and after recording the reason to believe, the Assessing Officer has categorically mentioned in the reasons recorded that I, therefore, consider that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148 The assessee has miserably failed to discharge the onus that lay on her by section 68 of the Act. The creditworthiness of the creditors does not stand proved by any cogent evidence on record. Mere bald statements of Gopal Gautam that he deposited the sum of ₹ 5 lakhs to the account of assessee after getting the amount from his father or mother, is not supported by any corroborative evidence and no proof of creditworthiness of other two creditors is also available on record. In presence of all these peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the decisions relied by the assessee in several cases have rightly not been considered as relevant to the case of assessee. We also do not find any credible material on record from the side of assessee to discard the findings reached by the ld. Authorities below. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification of the addition of ?15,00,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the order passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The appellant challenged the validity of the order passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) on multiple grounds:
1. Basis of AIR Information: The notice issued under section 148 was based on AIR information regarding the deposit of ?27,62,500 in the assessee's savings bank account.
2. Lack of Material Evidence: The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to bring any material evidence on record to show that the income had escaped assessment.
3. Non-recording of Satisfaction: The appellant contended that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO before issuing the notice under section 148, and the notice was issued in a mechanical manner without compliance with section 151(2).
4. Non-speaking Order: The AO disposed of objections to the notice under section 148 by a non-speaking order, making the assessment arbitrary, illegal, and void ab initio.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A), noting that:
1. The AO issued query letters to the assessee for verification of the cash deposit, which went unanswered.
2. The AO's suspicion converted into a bona-fide belief that taxable income had escaped assessment due to non-compliance by the assessee.
3. The AO recorded reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and obtained requisite sanction from the competent authority.
4. The AO provided a reasoned factual rebuttal to the objections filed by the assessee.

Issue 2: Justification of the addition of ?15,00,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The appellant contended that the addition of ?15,00,000 under section 68 was unjustified, arguing that:
1. The sum of ?15,00,000 was wrongly treated as unexplained cash credit.
2. The assessee provided explanations supported by statements and confirmations from one of the creditors.

The Tribunal upheld the addition, noting that:
1. The AO examined the deposits and withdrawals in the bank account and found that the credit of ?15,00,000 from three individuals was unexplained as the assessee failed to prove their identity and creditworthiness.
2. The statement of one creditor, Gopal Gautam, was in favor of the assessee but was not substantiated with evidence of his creditworthiness.
3. The assessee failed to provide concrete evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the other two creditors, Kuldeep and Dinesh Kumar Sharma.
4. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee did not discharge the onus under section 68 to prove the genuineness of the cash credits.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 and the addition of ?15,00,000 under section 68. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the findings of the AO and to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors. The appeal was found to be devoid of merits and was thus dismissed.