9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee had withdrawn Rs. 23,55,000/- from the bank account. The AO did not give the benefit of opening cash balance of Rs. 10,82,297/- and redrew the cash flow in the assessment order. After treating some of the entries of cash deposits as explained the AO treated cash deposits amounting to Rs. 13,13,000/- as unexplained. 3. Before CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee on both the issues. So far as the ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings are concerned, he decided the same against the assessee by observing as under :- 5.1 The AO had reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of AIR information that the appellant has made cash deposits of Rs. 60,55,000/- in his savings bank account and the appellant has not filed the Return of Income for AY 2010-11. The AR has challenged the reopening of the assessment by stating that the actual cash deposits amounted to Rs. 34,22,000/- and the appellant has duly fled the Return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 26.07.2010. In view of this, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment was based on incorrect information and therefore, the reopening proceedings should be quashed. A perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO shows that the reopening of the assessment was done with respect to the other PAN held by the appellant which is AKOPB2313B and the Return of Income was being filed by the appellant using the PAN AAHPB3067B. Since the AO had information related to the other PAN not being used by the appellant for filing of Return of Income and it was the duty of the appellant to surrender the duplicate PAN, it cannot be said that the AO had reopened the assessment based on wrong information. The AO had done due verification with respect to the other PAN. and had found that no Return of Income was filed for that PAN. In view of this, I don't find any reason to find fault with the reopening proceedings and therefore, the ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds :- 1. That the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequently upheld by Ld. CIT(A) is perverse to law and to the facts of the case because of reop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the reopening is bad in law and should be quashed. 1. Munni Devi Vs. ITO Rewari, ITA No.3534/Del/2014 2. Harmeet Singh Vs. ITO, Delhi ITA No.1939/Del/2016 3. Bir Bahadur Singh, 68 SOT 197 4. Praveen Kumar Jain Vs. ITO, ITA No.1331/Del/2015 5. Sh. Mahavir Prasad Vs. ITO Rewari, ITA No.924/Del/2015 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned he submitted that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appeals proceedings had furnished the date wise details of cash withdrawn and cash deposit. However, it was presumed by the Assessing Officer that the cash withdrawn on earlier dates would have been consumed prior to subsequent withdrawal and therefore, the benefit of the same cannot be allowed. He submitted that the above observation of the Assessing Officer is solely based upon surmises and presumptions and without any evidence contrary to the claim of the assessee. He submitted that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as well as before the CIT(A) has duly explained the nexus of cash in hand, deposit in the bank account and its utilization. 9. So far as the non-acceptance of the statement of affairs of earlier years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and had found that no return of income was filed in that PAN. In view of the above and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A) while upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings, I do not find any infirmity in the same. Accordingly the same is upheld. The various decisions relied by Ld. Counsel for the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the present case especially when in non of the cases, the assessee was having two PAN numbers. The ground raised by the assessee on the issue of reopening is accordingly dismissed. 12. So far as the addition on merit is concerned I find as against the information received of cash deposit of Rs. 60,55,000/-, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has actually deposited cash of Rs. 34,20,000/-. I find the Assessing Officer accepted an amount of Rs. 20,07,000/- and treated the balance amount of Rs. 13,13,000/- as unexplained. It is not understood why there is a difference of Rs. 1,00,000/- between the actual difference of Rs. 14,13,000/- and addition made at Rs. 13,13,000/-. From the various details furnished by the assessee in the paper book I find the assessee has declared income of Rs. 23,48,906/- wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
