9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer had any curiosity about the deposits made in such bank accounts, it was for him to question the assessee on such cash deposits. He simply cannot take shelter of Explanation-1 to Section 147 by contending that since such cash deposit was not pointedly brought to his notice by the petitioner, he can reopen the assessment beyond a period of four years alleging that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts. Coming to the second element of the reasons for reopening the assessment, the petitioner pointed out to the Assessing Officer in objections raised to the reopening of assessment that he never owned or operated any bank account in Kotak Mahindra Bank as alleged. He would presume that reference to cash d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner for Assessment Year 2008-09, which was previously framed after scrutiny. 2. Brief facts are as under:- 2.1 The petitioner is an individual and is engaged in the business of repairing of motorcars. For the Assessment Year 2008-09, the petitioner filed return of income disclosing total income of ₹ 4.62 lacs (rounded off). Such return was taken in scrutiny. The Assessing Officer framed scrutiny assessment, assessing total income of the assessee at ₹ 5.39 lacs (rounded off). The Assessing Officer later on issued impugned notice seeking to reopen such assessment for which he had recorded following reasons:- Reasons for belief that income was escaped: In this case scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en guilty of non-disclosure of true and correct facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing Officer, therefore, committed a serious error in issuing the impugned notice. 3.1 Our attention was drawn to the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice in which it has been stated that there were cash deposits by the petitioner in two bank accounts maintained by him, viz. in the Bank of India and Kotak Mahindra Bank. According to such reasons, the assessee had not disclosed such bank accounts before the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment. According to the Assessing Officer, therefore, such cash deposits in the said accounts escaped assessment. Counsel submitted that the account in Bank of India being Current Account N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant Assessment Year. The important condition to be satisfied in such case therefore would of the assessee having failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for such assessment. Validity of the notice would have to be judged on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. We may recall the reason for reopening the assessment was that the petitioner assessee had made cash deposits of ₹ 10,72 lacs in his account in Bank of India and ₹ 14.67 lacs in his account in Kotak Mahindra Bank. According to the Assessing Officer, these deposits escaped assessment since the bank accounts in question had not been disclosed by the assessee. He was emphatic that on verification of balance sheet and assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 122441-00 Nil 2 Bank of India Kamrej Br.Surat. Current A/c-285 51638-00 51638-00 Nil 3 The Varachha Co.Op.Bank, Valak, Surat. Current A/c-1967 10291.67 10291.67 Nil 8. It can thus be seen that from the outset, the said Current Account No.8109 of Bank of India was disclosed by the petitioner. Even during the scrutiny assessment, this bank account came up for specific focus. The petitioner pointed out that the balance in the said bank account as on 31.03.2008 was ₹ 1,22,441/-, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the said bank for purchase of car. These objections, however, met with a total silence by the Assessing Officer in the order that he passed on 15.06.2015 disposing of such objections. If his stand was that the contention of the petitioner that he never had any such bank account in Kotak Mahindra Bank was false, it was his duty to state so, with atleast prima facie material to so establish. He merely stated in the said order that:- 5. On perusal of the record, it is noticed that, at the time of assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2008-09 ITS data was not uploaded, hence was not available on system /record. The assessee also has not disclosed the source and veracity of transactions in respect of cash deposits of ₹ 10,72,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
