9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en held in various decisions of the ITAT cited by assessee before us, is not sufficient for formation of belief of escapement of income. There is no information on record that on receipt of this information by the AO any inquiry or investigation was conducted by him so as to gather information regarding source of cash deposits either from the assessee or from any other source. In the absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad (in short referred to as ld.CIT(A)) under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short), dated 27.11.2018pertaining to Asst.Year2010-11. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: (1) That on facts, and in law, the re-opening of assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction to reopen the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Mariyam Ismail Rajwanivs ITO in ITA No. 676/Ahd/2016 dated 09/08/2016 and BirBahadur Singh Sijwali v. I.T.O. [2015] 53 taxmann.com 366 (ITAT-Delhi). The ld.DR however, relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A). 5. We have heard both the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.5,00,000/- on 17/4/2009 in his HDFC Bank A/c. 6. The ld.CIT(A), I have noted, did not entertain contention raised by the assessee that this information solely could not have led to formation of belief of escapement of income, stating that case laws relied upon by the assessee were not applicable to the facts of the case; no reasoning was given by the ld.CIT(A) for the same. 7. I am not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered by the decision of the ITAT in the cases Mariyam Ismail Rajwani and Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali (supra). In view of the same, we hold that jurisdiction assumed by the AO to reopen the case of the assessee was not in accordance with law in the absence of formation of belief of escapement of income by the AO. The assessment order so framed is therefore not sustainable in law, and is set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
