2021 (7) TMI 706 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - non-provide of opportunity and also illegality of the reopening of assessment. - HELD THAT - It is settled position of law that the formation of belief for escapement of income should be based on correct and true information. However, admittedly incorrect figure transfer of cash deposit in the assessee s account was mentioned in the information on the basis of which the Assessing Officer formed his belief of escapement of income - nothing is placed on record to suggest that the Ld. CIT by granting approval had examined the record and applied his mind as there is no justification regarding difference in the amount deposited in bank account and mentioned in the reason for reopening. When apparently there was a higher figure mentioned in the information supplied to the Assessing Officer. No material is available suggesting that bank had supplied wrong information to the Assessing Officer as the AIR information is not placed on record. Looking to the facts of the present case I am of the considered view that the reopening of assessment and approval thereof is not accordance with settled principle of law. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. The reopening of the assessment is held to be bad in law on account of non-application of mind by the authorities below. Unexplained cash deposited in the bank account - gifts receipts - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer drew his conclusion on the basis of the bank statement of the assessee and her father-in-law. It is correct that the assessee had deposited money at the different dates. This has caused suspicion, however, if the assessee had deposited in one go, the Assessing Officer would have not doubted. It is not the case where the donor was not a man of any means. Therefore, looking to totality of facts the action of the Assessing Officer cannot be upheld. Therefore, impugned addition is hereby deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of ?11,33,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding alleged cash deposits.
2. Legality and procedural correctness of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Adequacy of opportunity provided to the appellant and adherence to principles of natural justice.
4. Validity of the addition without proper examination of documentary evidence and legal provisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Addition of ?11,33,000:
The primary issue revolves around the confirmation of an addition of ?11,33,000 by the AO, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The AO based this addition on alleged cash deposits in the appellant's bank account. The appellant contended that these deposits were gifts from a relative. The Tribunal found that the AO's conclusion was based on conjectures and surmises, and the appellant had provided a plausible explanation supported by documentary evidence, including a donation letter and details of the donor's financial transactions. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not provide substantial evidence to counter the appellant's claims and thus deleted the addition.

2. Legality and Procedural Correctness of Reassessment Proceedings:
The appellant challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the reasons for reopening were based on incorrect and stale information. The Tribunal observed that the information used for reopening the assessment was materially different from the actual bank statements, leading to a flawed formation of belief regarding income escapement. The Tribunal emphasized that the formation of belief must be based on correct and true information, which was not the case here. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not in accordance with settled legal principles and declared it bad in law.

3. Adequacy of Opportunity and Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the reassessment proceedings were conducted without affording adequate opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the authorities did not properly verify the information or apply their minds before proceeding with the reassessment. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant and ensuring a fair hearing, which was not adequately observed in this case.

4. Validity of Addition Without Proper Examination of Evidence:
The appellant contended that the CIT(A) upheld the addition without pointing out the relevant provisions of the Act or appreciating the documentary evidence provided. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the AO failed to bring any material evidence to rebut the appellant's explanation. The Tribunal criticized the AO for not properly examining the evidence and relying on assumptions. It was observed that the donor had the means to make the gift, and the appellant had deposited the money in a manner that should not have raised suspicion. Therefore, the Tribunal found the addition to be unsustainable and deleted it.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to non-application of mind and incorrect information. The addition of ?11,33,000 was deleted, and the appeal was decided in favor of the appellant. The decision emphasized the importance of accurate information, proper verification, and adherence to principles of natural justice in reassessment proceedings.

← Previous Next →