2023 (4) TMI 992 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) on the interest income - AO initiated re-assessment proceedings on the ground that the cash deposited in savings bank account and with banking company was not properly verifiable - HELD THAT - Denial of deduction u/s.80P on interest income was not the subject matter of the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating the re-assessment proceedings. At the same time, the reasons which constituted the foundation for the initiation of re-assessment proceedings, did not get reflected in the computation of total income as determined by the AO on his being satisfied. Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. ( 2010 (4) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY ) has held that the AO cannot proceed with re-assessment if the grounds mentioned in re-assessment are non-existent i.e., if no addition is made on that score. When examine the factual scenario obtaining in the instant case on the touchstone of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the above decision, the inescapable conclusion which can be drawn is that the addition made in the re-assessment order, different from the one for which notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and that itself was not made, lacks legality. The same is, therefore, directed to be deleted. Assessment u/s 144 - addition u/s.69A towards cash deposited in the bank account and a further addition towards estimation of income on amount deposited in the bank account - HELD THAT - It is seen that the assessment order in this case was passed on 18-12-2019, whereas the assessee filed its reply to the AO by means of an e-mail communication dated 12-12-2019, whose evidence has been placed on record. Similar is the position regarding the first appeal inasmuch as the assessee furnished written submissions, which were omitted to be considered by the ld. CIT(A). The ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order for this year is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of AO for making the assessment afresh.

Summary

Issues involved: Delay in filing appeals for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18, denial of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income, addition of cash deposits in bank accounts, and estimation of income.

ITA No.310/PUN/2023 - A.Y. 2013-14:
The assessee contested the denial of deduction u/s.80P on interest income by the Assessing Officer. The re-assessment proceedings were initiated based on cash deposits, but the AO eventually denied the deduction unrelated to the initial grounds. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal ruled the addition lacked legality and directed its deletion.

ITA Nos. 309 and 308/PUN/2023 - A.Yrs. 2014-15 and 2016-17:
Similar to the A.Y. 2013-14, the AO initiated re-assessment for cash deposits but reduced the deduction u/s.80P on interest income without making any additions related to the initial grounds. Following the previous ruling, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of these additions for both years.

ITA No.333/PUN/2023 - A.Y. 2017-18:
The appeal contested additions of cash deposits and estimated income. The AO passed an ex parte order, disregarding the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal found procedural errors and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment, ensuring the assessee's right to a fair hearing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2016-17, and allowed the appeal for the A.Y. 2017-18 for statistical purposes. The judgment emphasized procedural fairness and adherence to legal grounds in assessment proceedings.