2022 (9) TMI 193 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Validity of impugned order u/s 148A(d) as without jurisdiction or illegal - unsecured loan and cash deposit in two bank accounts - HELD THAT - Prima facie, the petitioner had an explanation with respect to cash deposits in the aforesaid two savings bank accounts. However, so far as unsecured loan is concerned, the petitioner could not submit any credible evidence alongwith its reply to establish credit worthiness of the lender i.e. M/s Arrow Netmart Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, prima facie, the Assessing Authority had some relevant material before him to assume jurisdiction for initiating re-assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act, 1961. Thus, since the Assessing Authority has some relevant material in his hands, therefore, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or illegal. Writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to participate in the proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act and order u/s 148A(d) for reassessment of Income for A.Y. 2018-19.
2. Validity of sanction issued by respondent no.3 under Section 151 of Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition to quash the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the order u/s 148A(d) dated 29.3.2022 for reassessment of Income for A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessing Officer cited two grounds for re-opening the case: unsecured loan and cash deposits in bank accounts. The petitioner provided a bank certificate indicating that cash deposits were made by students as fees. However, no credible evidence was submitted regarding the creditworthiness of the lender for the unsecured loan. The court found that the Assessing Authority had relevant material to initiate re-assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act, 1961 based on the lack of evidence for the unsecured loan. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to participate in the re-assessment proceedings.

2. The petitioner also challenged the sanction issued by respondent no.3 under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The court's decision on the validity of the sanction was intertwined with the overall dismissal of the writ petition based on the lack of credible evidence regarding the unsecured loan. The court did not specifically address the validity of the sanction separately but focused on the grounds for re-assessment provided by the Assessing Officer. The dismissal of the petition implied that the sanction was upheld, as the court found jurisdiction for initiating re-assessment proceedings based on the material available to the Assessing Authority.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the validity of the notice under Section 148 and the order u/s 148A(d) for reassessment of Income for A.Y. 2018-19, as well as the sanction issued by respondent no.3 under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The decision was based on the lack of credible evidence regarding the unsecured loan, which provided the Assessing Authority with relevant material to proceed with the re-assessment. The petitioner was allowed to participate in the re-assessment proceedings, and any observations made in the court's order were not to be considered adverse to the petitioner during the re-assessment process.