9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee had filed its return of income through e-mode under different PAN - AO has re-opened the assessment on the ground that the assessee did not file any return of income. It reflects non-application of mind and the assessment was re-opened without verifying the records. It is also not disputed that for the AY 2011-12 also, the assessee had re-opened the assessment and assessed the income of the assessee - the information before the Assessing Authority was regarding cash deposited by the assessee - Therefore, the re-opening of the assessment by the Assessing Authority and treating the entire cash deposits as the income of the assessee, is contrary to the records of the authority itself. Hence, we hereby quash the impugned assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n wrong assumptions that the assessee had not filed the return of Income for the said AY 2010-11. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts in his order by not going in to the issue of surrendering the previous PAN. That the previous PAN was surrendered by the assessee via letter to the Assessing officer. 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts by not going into the merit of the case. That the assessee is engaged in trading business and the amount was deposited in the assessee s account. However, CIT(A) erred in law by not invoking the provisions of section 44AF. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the above grounds during the pendency of the appeal. FAC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded by the AO were not supplied to the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that for AY 2011-12 also, the assessment was re-opened on the basis of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee. However, the income was assessed at Rs.4,67,460/- by the AO. He further contended that the facts are identical in the year under consideration. Therefore, the re-opening itself is bad in law hence, deserves to be quashed. 7. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that the assessee was grossly negligent and did not appear before the AO and furnished requisite evidences. Ld.CIT(A) therefore, was justified in sustaining the addition. He thus su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CICI Bank with the PAN: AWJPS1941H, is received by the AO and the case was reopened after following due procedure. It is not in dispute that this PAN and account belongs to the appellant. Now the appellant filed the copy of the return of income in which business income of Rs.1,58,210/- by applying section 44AF against the total receipt of Rs.13,22,635/-, is filed, Although the return of income is filed under different PAN i.e. BFUPS2317J. No material fact is brought to the knowledge of either AO or at the appellate stage that the receipt shown in the return of income is coming from the bank account considered by the AO while making assessment. Even in the return of income bank account i.e. in ICICI Bank is not mentioned. These facts further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scussion, I am of the view that AO has correctly added the credit entries in the undisclosed account of the appellant, to the income of the appellant. I do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the AO. Hence the ground of appeal is also dismissed. 9. From the above finding of Ld.CIT(A), it is clear that despite the fact that the assessee had filed return of income for the year under consideration by way of e-filing. The AO recorded wrongly that no ITR was filed by the assessee. It is well-settled that reasons for re-opening of the assessment is the foundation of assumption of jurisdiction for re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. It is also well-settled that any undisputed fact which goes to prove the reasons for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncorrect, bad in law and void ab initio. 2. Whether the Ld CIT (A) was justified in upholding the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO of Rs. 9,24,270/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when assessee duly filed his return declaring his income from a different PAN. 3. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) upholding the penalty order passed by the AO is not justified as assessee never intended to conceal the facts and never failed to file his correct return of Income. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the above grounds during the pendency of the appeal. 12. As in the quantum appeal in ITA No.7382/Del/2018 pertaining to AY 2010-11, the impugned assessment order which is the foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
