9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h a nexus. Inquiry by the AO is this nexus and perusal of the reasons shows this nexus or link to be missing in the present case. So, ‘M/s Ginni Filaments’ [2011 (3) TMI 1756 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] works in favour of the assessee, rather than against him. The grievance of the assessee by way of ground is found to be justified. It is accepted as such. The reasons recorded by the AO are, thus, held to be null and void. - ITA No. 243/Agra/2017 - - - Dated:- 4-6-2018 - SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Anurag Sinha, AR. For The Revenue : Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR. ORDER PER, A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is assessee s appeal for A.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is not a Capital Asset as defined under section 2(15) of the 'Act' therefore, even on merits no addition can be made in peculiar facts of the case where assessee has no other source of Income expect Agriculture Income. 7. BECAUSE, 'appellant' has sufficiently and satisfactorily explained the deposits in his bank account and the addition has been made on presumptions and surmises in utter ignorance of the settled legal position that in reassessment proceedings the onus is on the AO to prove that cash deposits represents Income which has escaped assessment. 8. BECAUSE, in any case and in any view of the matter impugned additions/disallowances and impugned assessment order is bad in law, illegal, unjustified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee s reliance on these decisions has been taken note of at page 4 of the impugned order, they have not been dealt with by the ld. CIT(A). The issue raised by the assessee has, thus, not been decided. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the Authorities below have failed to appreciate that the reasons recorded by the AO are, in fact, no reasons in law, inasmuch as they do not show any application of mind on the part of the AO, before recording of such reasons, to the information received; that as such, no notice u/s 148 of the Act was warranted, since the reasons do not show as to how the AO came to the belief that any income liable for tax had escaped assessment. It has been contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money is prima facie evidence against the assessee, was not up for consideration in Sijwali (supra). Too, even if this argument be taken, it does not at all absolve the AO of his duty under the Act to make inquiry in this regard. No such inquiry is evincible from the reasons recorded, as reproduced hereinabove. The AO, squarely, has not applied his mind to the information received, before recording the reasons. 11. Apropos Saraf (supra), therein, again, no question was asked of the assessee by the AO before reopening the assessment. It was on this basis, that it was held that the AO could not have formed the belief of escapement of income and that hence, the reopening was without jurisdiction and invalid. It was, inter alia, observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. But mere deposit of an amount alone in the bank account cannot give an inference that this was liable to be taxed as income and assessee has not disclosed the same and therefore, it has escaped assessment. No question has been asked from the assessee before reopening the assessment as to the source of the deposits in the bank account. 18. Once survey Under Section 133A is being done and the Assessing Officer has, as stated, found books of accounts and documents, it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to ask the assessee as to the source of these deposits and as to whether they are recorded in the regular books of accounts. In a case where deposits in the bank account are recorded in the regular books of accounts then there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e regular books, it will not be automatically inferred that it was chargeable to tax and it has escaped assessment. Thus, we hold that formation of belief by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment was not legally proper as on the basis of facts recorded in the reasons he could not have come to the inference that sum of ₹ 1,02,047/- has escaped assessment. We, thus, hold that Assessing Officer has not formed a proper belief on the basis of material brought in the reasons so recorded and therefore reopening of the assessment was without jurisdiction and invalid. The assessment on that basis is required to be annulled. 12. The observation regarding absence of necessary inquiry by the AO in the light of the information re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
