2022 (9) TMI 246 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Unexplained cash deposits - HELD THAT - As recorded by the AO that various opportunities were given to the assessee. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the lower authorities have made addition on the basis that the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposits. It was stated before the lower authorities that the account was jointly held with wife of the assessee hence, the entire amount could not have been attributed. Assessee ought to have been given a proper hearing by the lower authorities to explain the source of cash deposits. It was stated by the assessee that the bank account in which the cash was deposited was jointly held with wife of the assessee. Admittedly the AO did not issue any notice to other joint holder of the account i.e. spouse of the assessee. Assessment was re-opened without application of mind. Moreover, Ld.CIT(A) also did not verify the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Under these facts, the impugned addition made by re-opening of the assessment, is not justified. Hence, the impugned addition is hereby, deleted. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed.

Issues:
Challenge to jurisdiction under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and completion of assessment under section 144, Invalid notices sent to wrong address, Misstatements in assessment order, Application of section 69A, Addition of unexplained cash deposits under section 68.

Jurisdiction under section 148 and Assessment under section 144:
The appeal challenged the jurisdiction assumed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and completion of assessment under section 144. The appellant argued that the assessing officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction and completed the assessment without proper notices. The Tribunal found that notices were sent to an incorrect address, rendering them invalid. The Tribunal held that the assessment order framed under section 144 was illegal and bad in law due to the invalid notices.

Invalid Notices and Misstatements:
The appellant contended that misstatements were made by the assessing officer in the assessment order and remand report, misleading the assessment process. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the address used for sending notices, highlighting the lack of due diligence by the assessing officer. The Tribunal emphasized that the incorrect address misled the assessment process with mala fide intentions, leading to an improper application of the law.

Application of Section 69A:
The appellant challenged the arbitrary application of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) exceeded his mandate by applying section 69A to cash credits not found in the books of account. The Tribunal noted that the application of section 69A was arbitrary and beyond the scope of the law.

Addition of Unexplained Cash Deposits under Section 68:
The assessing officer made additions for unexplained cash deposits under section 68 of the Act. The appellant argued that the assessing officer did not diligently verify the profile of the appellant, leading to incorrect conclusions. The Tribunal found that the assessing officer failed to apply due diligence and 360-degree verification, indicating a lack of proper assessment. The Tribunal held that the additions made on the ground of unexplained cash deposits were not justified, as the assessment was reopened without proper application of mind.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the impugned addition of unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing the assessee with a proper hearing to explain the source of cash deposits and criticized the lack of due diligence in the assessment process. The order was pronounced in the open court on 31st August 2022.

← Previous Next →