2023 (5) TMI 1227 - HC - Income Tax

Review petition - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - petitioner/assessee was a non-filer - reasons to believe that the cash deposit had been made by the petitioner/assessee from undisclosed sources, which had escaped assessment - HELD THAT - AO, it appears, received two pieces of information - First, that the said amount had been deposited in the aforementioned bank account, and second, that the petitioner/assessee had not filed a return. The second piece of information was not accurate - once the petitioner/assessee informed the AO that a return had been filed, it came to light that no scrutiny-assessment has taken place. The return, concededly, had been processed u/s 143(1) - AO, thus, was of the view that the matter required further enquiry and investigation, and therefore, proceeded further after disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner/assessee. The objections were disposed of by the AO on 27.11.2019. It was only thereafter that a notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 27.11.2019. Therefore, the AO having examined the matter holistically, concluded that the return filed by the petitioner could be accepted. We find Petitioners argument that reassessment proceedings were commenced because the AO was under the impression that the return had not been filed does not give a complete picture of the background facts. The other facet which triggered enquiry u/s 148 was the deposit of cash by the petitioner/assessee in the aforementioned bank accounts. It cannot be said that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was invalid. This is evident upon a bare perusal of the reasons given by the AO for reopening the assessment. Thus, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the impugned notices had no basis for triggering an enquiry, and therefore, were invalid. Although we had closed the writ petition, we granted the petitioner/assessee leeway to take recourse to a statutory remedy as per law, in case he was still aggrieved by the assessment order passed in his case. There is, to our minds, no error apparent on the face of the record. We find no merit in the review petition

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with a review petition filed by the petitioner/assessee against a previous judgment regarding the validity of notices issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Prefatory Facts and Submissions of Counsel:
The review petition was filed against a judgment passed in a writ petition seeking relief regarding the validity of notices issued under Sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the relief sought in the writ petition was not fully considered, especially regarding the jurisdiction of the notices issued. The petitioner contended that despite the acceptance of the income tax return by the Assessing Officer, the grievance was not fully addressed.

Reasoning and Analysis:
The court observed that although the petitioner had filed the return for the relevant assessment year, there were discrepancies related to cash deposits in bank accounts. The Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, leading to the reopening of the assessment. The court found that the notices issued were not invalid as they were based on relevant information and required further investigation. The court emphasized that the reassessment proceedings were not solely based on the assumption that the return had not been filed, but also on the cash deposits made by the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the review petition, stating that there was no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The court found no error in the previous judgment and upheld the validity of the notices issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The pending application was closed accordingly.