9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 1211 - AT - Income TaxInitiation of proceeding u/s 147/148 - detailed submissions were made by the assessee that it was a mere case of suspicion and no reason to believe existed - HELD THAT - After carefully considering the entire material on record and the information received by the AO detailed in the assessment order we are not inclined to accept the contentions raised. The law is well settled that while initiating the reassessment proceedings reasons to believe or information cannot be found at fault saying that the same was insufficient. It is not the stage to reach to a conclusion but the AO is required only to form a prima facie belief as to escapement. Thus these grounds taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed. Addition u/s 69A - unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee during the relevant previous year - assessee explained that the cash deposited was derived from the prior withdrawals from the assessee s own bank account - HELD THAT - CIT (A) observed that the assessee not substantiated the source of cash deposits and the AO added the entire cash deposits in the background of lack of documentary evidence. We do not fully agree with the finding of the CIT(A) that there was a complete lack of documentary evidences to support the contention of cash availability. He himself has referred to the fact of cash flow statement. As noticed that there was a minor gap of 15 to 20 days between the withdrawal and redeposit of cash in the bank account which allegation of the AO has been rejected by the CIT(A) also. With regard to his contention of utilization towards drawing is quite vague. The onus was upon the AO to have established utilization towards household drawings from undisclosed sources which has not been done as no separate addition was made. Since contrary claims have been made on the factual aspect as regards the availability of the funds with the help of the cash flow statement it is desirable that the ld. CIT(A) should have examined thoroughly this contention of the assessee. We therefore considering the principles of natural justice restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT (A) to decide the issue afresh in the light of the above observations. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Sections 147/148 Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The initiation of reassessment proceedings requires the Assessing Officer (AO) to have a "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, a standard higher than mere suspicion. The Supreme Court decisions in Gangasharan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das clarified that the AO's belief must be based on concrete and reliable grounds, not on imagination or vague suspicion. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged that the AO must form a prima facie belief for reassessment and that the AO's reasons cannot be challenged at this stage for sufficiency. The Tribunal found no fault with the AO's reasons recorded in the assessment order, holding that the reassessment initiation was valid and within jurisdiction. Application of Law to Facts: The AO's belief was based on the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account and the alleged failure to satisfactorily explain them. The Tribunal held that the AO's formation of belief was not without jurisdiction. Conclusion: The grounds challenging the reassessment initiation were dismissed. Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 12,30,000/- as Unexplained Cash Deposit under Section 69A Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69A applies to unexplained cash credits or deposits. The burden lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source of such deposits. The Supreme Court in CIT v. P. Mohanakala emphasized that the AO's opinion rejecting the explanation must be based on proper appreciation of material and circumstances. The Tribunal also referred to various High Court and Tribunal decisions emphasizing that sufficient availability of cash and failure of the AO to prove utilization elsewhere negates addition. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO rejected the assessee's explanation that the cash deposits were from prior bank withdrawals, citing gaps between withdrawal and deposit dates, non-audited cash book, and the assessee's high net worth with allegedly underestimated household expenses. The AO also referred to the assessee's prior inconsistent submissions in AY 2017-18. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, noting lack of documentary evidence and failure to satisfactorily explain the deposits. The assessee's representative argued that the cash book and bank statements fully corroborated the source of deposits, pointing out that the gaps between withdrawal and deposit were minor and normal in business practice. It was submitted that the AO failed to prove utilization of the withdrawn cash elsewhere and that the AO's assumptions regarding household expenses were baseless and unsubstantiated. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adequately consider the cash flow statement and the documentary evidence submitted. It observed that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving that the cash was utilized elsewhere or was not available at the time of deposit. The Tribunal noted that suspicion cannot replace proof and that the AO's conclusion on gaps between withdrawal and deposit dates was not sufficient to reject the explanation. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal emphasized settled legal principles that availability of cash withdrawn from the bank must be accepted unless the AO disproves it. The Tribunal cited various precedents where additions were deleted due to failure of the Revenue to prove utilization of cash elsewhere. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The AO's reliance on presumed household expenses and prior inconsistent statements was rejected as speculative and unsupported by evidence. The assessee's explanation supported by contemporaneous records was accepted as credible. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the addition under section 69A was unjustified and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration in light of the observations made, ensuring natural justice and proper evaluation of evidence. Issue 3: Invocation of Section 115BBE Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 115BBE applies to income deemed to be income from other sources under sections 68, 69, and 69A. The income must be taxable under the head "Income from Other Sources" as per section 14 of the Act. The Supreme Court in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. and Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. CIT clarified that income must be classified under the appropriate head and cannot be arbitrarily taxed under another head. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee contended that since no income was rightly added under section 69A, invoking section 115BBE was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed that no escaped income existed to attract section 115BBE and that the AO's invocation of this provision was vague and unsupported. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that invocation of section 115BBE was invalid and deserved to be quashed. Issue 4: Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D This issue became academic as the Tribunal restored the matter for fresh adjudication on the addition under section 69A. No separate adjudication was made on interest liability. Issue 5: Limitation and Procedural Compliance for Issue of Notice under Section 148 Relevant Legal Framework: Section 148 notices must be issued within prescribed limitation periods under section 149. The Finance Act, 2021 amended limitation to three years for most cases, with exceptions for escaped income exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs. Section 148A prescribes mandatory pre-issuance procedures. The proviso to section 149(1)(b) restricts extended limitation to six years unless conditions are met. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee argued the notice was time-barred as it was issued beyond the three-year period and the conditions for extended limitation were not met. The Tribunal did not expressly decide this issue but condoned delay in filing appeal and restored the matter for fresh consideration. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The powers of the ITO to reopen assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words of the statute are 'reason to believe' and not 'reason to suspect'. The reopening to the assessment after the lapse of many years is a serious matter... The belief must not be a product of imagination or speculation." "The onus lay upon the person who alleges that what is apparent is not real... The AO has proceeded on mere suspicion, surmises and conjectures. No contrary evidence is brought on record to show or disprove the vital fact and contention that sufficient cash was available with the assessee as cash in hand and thus failed to show that what is apparent was not real." "A reasonable period between withdrawal and deposit of cash does not, in itself, raise any presumption of the funds being unaccounted or improperly utilized... The gap of 15 to 20 days in the present case is consistent with routine cash management practices and cannot be considered as unusual or suspicious until the AO brings any contrary evidence on record." "Section 115BBE of the Act specifically refers to the income which are of the nature as referred in sections 68, 69, 69A of the Act being the income from other sources. Therefore, subjected income has essentially to be classified under section 14 of the Act as income from other sources... Since there is no income as such which could be added under these sections, there is no question of invoking section 115BBE." The Tribunal's final determination was to dismiss the grounds challenging the reassessment initiation, restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the addition under section 69A in light of the evidence on record, and hold that invocation of section 115BBE was invalid. The issues relating to interest and limitation became academic pending fresh decision.
|
