9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n; that the proceedings initiated are based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion. The same are without jurisdiction; that the reasons recorded are highly vague, far-fetched and cannot by any stretch of imagination lead to conclusion of escapement of income and these are merely presumption in nature; that it is a case of mechanical action on the part of the AO as there is non-application of mind much less independent application of mind so as to show that he formed an opinion based on any material that such deposits represented income. See KRISHAN KUMAR VERSUS ITO [2017 (12) TMI 1612 - ITAT NEW DELHI]- Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 3984/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2018 - SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO and Ld. CITA made egregious error in making and confirming of the addition of ₹ 18,17,621/- as per para-5 of the assessment order, which neither forms part of reasons recorded u/s 148, for which no separate notice u/s 148 is issued and same is even not sustainable on merits. 3. Notice u/s 148 for A.Y. 2007-08 was issued to the assessee on 16.03.2012 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rewari having territorial jurisdiction to the assess the income of the assessee after recording the following reasons: As per AIR information for the F.Y. 2006-07 received in this office the assessee has made cash deposits of ₹ 19,00,000/- in his bank account with PUNJAB NATIONAL Bank REWARI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per information available on record, the assessee made cash deposit of ₹ 12,50,000/- on 08.05.2006 and ₹ 6,50,000/- on 11.05.2006 in his bank account maintained with branch office Ateli. The assessee was asked a query dated 06.02.2013 as to explain the source of these cash deposits with documentary evidence. The assessee vide reply dated 11.03.2013 submitted that the deposit in the bank account was out of the cash received from the agreement to sale. The Assessing Officer rejected the plea of the assessee on the ground that no sale deeds of the land was executed till date for which alleged agreements were made. The Assessing Officer observed that as per material available on record during the F.Y. 2006-7 relevant to A.Y. 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the notice issuing date are exactly the same as well as the Assessment Year is also the same. The Ld. DR also could not point out any distinguishing factor with the order of the Tribunal in case of Krishan Kumar and in present assessee s case. The Tribunal held as under: 9. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and Ld. CIT(A) and the paperbook filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. A perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO as reproduced by him in the assessment order shows that the reopening was made on account of cash deposit of ₹ 19 lakh in the bank account of the assessee. However, the AO in the assessment order h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reasons recorded by the ITO, Ward-2, Rewari, am of the view that there is no nexus between the prima facie inference arrived in the reasons recorded and information; the information was restricted to cash deposits in bank account but there was no material much less tangible, credible, cogent and relevant material to form a reason to believe that cash deposits represented income of the assessee; that even the communication dated 24.1.2012 could not be made a basis to assume jurisdiction in view of the fact that such an enquiry letter is an illegal enquiry letter and thus cannot be relied upon; that the proceedings initiated are based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion and therefore, 7 ITA no. 3985/Del/2017 the same are without jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
