9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 1,760,000/- in saving bank account grossly erred in ignoring the binding precedents in following cases a) Praveen Kumar Jain vs. ITO (Order dated 17.12.2015 in ITA no. 1331/Del/2015 (ITAT, Delhi) b) Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO reported as (2015) 68 SOT 197 (Delhi -Trib) c) Amrik Singh vs. ITO reported as (2016) 159 ITD 329 (Amritsar -Trib) referred and relied upon before him on the issue. 4. Because, learned 'CIT (Appeals)' has erred in not appreciating that no addition was made by the 'AO' under section 68/69 towards deposits in saving bank account, which was the sole reason for initiating proceedings under section 148, no other addition (as made by the 'AO') could validly be upheld in light of binding precedents cited before him and the distinction drawn by him on this score was not valid and justified. 5. Because in the facts and circumstances of the learned 'CIT (Appeals)' has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,061,930 towards alleged commission income estimated by the 'AO' at the rate of 1% against the income disclosed in the books of accounts. 6. Because while doing so, learned 'CIT (Appeals)' failed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .O. had reopened the assessment proceedings, Hence, as regards the first objection, it becomes evident that a specific and undeniable piece of information of deposit of a big sum of cash by the appellant, a non-filer of return of income, was available with the A.O. and so the reason to believe that income had escaped assessment was in no way based on conjectures or surmises. It is true that mere cash deposit in a bank account cannot constitute a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. However, in the impugned case, the fact of huge cash deposit in bank account was accompanied by an additional fact that the appellant had not, perhaps never filed his return of income. Under such a situation, I am of the view that the reasons cannot be held to be illegal." 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the stand taken by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). It has been submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing the grounds without even looking into the facts and ratios laid in the cited cases whereas the issue of cash deposit in bank account in case of non filer of return was squarely covered by the cited decisions and the learned CIT (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank account but then such in opinion proceeds on the fallacious assumption that the bank deposits constitute undisclosed income, and overlooks the fact that the sources of deposit need not necessarily be income of the assessee. Of course, it may be desirable, from the point of view of revenue authorities, to examine the matter in detail, but then reassessment proceedings cannot be resorted lo only to examine the facts of a case, no matter how desirable Shut be, unless there is u reason to believe, rather than suspect, that an income has escaped assessment." 9. As in "Sijwali" (supra), herein also, the transaction was of cash deposit in bank. In the present case too, as in "Sijwali" (supra), no return was filed. Thus, "Sijwali" (supra), is squarely applicable. It makes no difference that the assessee is carrying on business. The reasons are to be seen as they are. In "Sijwali" (supra), referring to "Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R B Wadker", 268 ITR 332 (Bombay), it has been held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are to be examined on a stand alone basis and nothing can be added to the reasons. It was also observed that the reasons must point out to an income escap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in some business and the income from such a business has not been returned by the assessee. As we do not have the liberty to examine these reasons on the basis of any other material or fact, other than the facts set out in the reasons so recorded, it is not open to us to deal with the question as to whether the assessee could be said to be engaged in any business; all that is to be examined is whether the fact of the deposits, per se. in the bank account of the assessee could be basis of holding the view that the income has escaped assessment. The answer, in our humble understanding, is in negative. The Assessing Officer has opined that an income of Rs. 10,24,100/- has escaped assessment of income because the assessee has Rs. 10,24,100/- in his bank account but then such an opinion proceeds on the fallacious assumption that the bank deposits constitute undisclosed income and overlooks the fact that the sources of deposit need not necessarily be income of the assessee. Of course, it may be desirable, from the point of view of revenue authorities, to examine the matter in detail, but then reassessment proceedings cannot be resorted to only to examine the facts of a case, no matter h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
