9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tates that the assessee has furnished copy of return of income electronically filed on 24.12.2013 declaring total income of ₹ 5,84,130/-. Reasons given by the Assessing Officer are devoid of any application of mind since not only the Assessing Officer assumed incorrect figure of cash deposits but also completely ignored the fact that return for the year under consideration was already filed on 24.12.2013. These facts can be gathered from the body of the assessment order itself - assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 7650/DEL/2018 - - - Dated:- 19-11-2019 - Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to ₹ 38 during the 12. However, no return of income has been filed for 2012-13. In view of the above information, I have reasons to believe an amount of ₹ 38 lac chargeable to tax has es/ assessment within the meaning section 147 of the I.T. Act. 1961. It is a fit case to issue notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. 5. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. In response to the same, the assessee furnished copy of return of income filed on 24.12.2013 and asked the Assessing Officer to treat the same as return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. 6. The assessee has challenged the validity of this notice as the same is devoid of any appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used the documents on record, it could be straightway seen that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded, proceeded on the erroneous footing that the assessee had not filed return at all. The first premise for issuing the notice was thus factually incorrect. It is now not disputed by the Revenue that the assessee did file return of income for the year under consideration which was duly acknowledged by the Department. The entire reasoning thus proceeded on the wrong premise that the assessee had never field the return. This itself would be sufficient to annul the notice of reopening the assessment. 11. On identical set of facts, the Coordinate Bench in the case of Ashwani Kumar in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case at hand also, the reasons recorded do not contain any such recital. The Tribunal held that the factum per se, of deposits in the bank account of the assessee could not be made the basis for holding the view that income had escaped assessment, over-looking that the sources of the deposits need not necessarily be the income of the assessee; and that as such, the reasons recorded were not sufficient to believe escapement of income; that rather, they were reasons to suspect escapement of income, which was not enough for issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Act. 12. A similar view was taken by the Delhi Bench in the case of Bahadur Singh Sijwali 53 taxmann.com 366. The relevant findings read as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 how desirable that be, unless there is a reason to believe, rather than suspect, that an income has escaped assessment. 9. Ld. Departmental Representative has referred to a number of judicial precedents in support of her stand that even deposits in the bank account, as having come to the notice of the Assessing Officer through AIR, can be reason enough for holding the belief that income has escaped assessment. She has relied upon the decisions in the cases of CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the name of the assessee figures as one of the beneficiaries of these alleged bogus transactions in the information given by the directorate. If the assessee was a beneficiary of such a scam, the income was indeed to have been taxed in its hands but then in the case before us the only reason for reassessment proceedings was the fact of deposit of bank account which by itself does not lead to income being taxed in the hands of the assessee. Ld. Departmental Representative has referred to several other judicial precedents in support of the proposition that at the stage of initiation of reassessment proceedings, all that is to be seen as existence, rather than adequacy, of the mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
