Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 974 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - eligibility of reasons to believe - CIT(A) quashing the impugned reopening as not sustainable as this is an instance of Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB)'s proceedings which could see light of the day only after the specified period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year thereby prompting the Assessing officer to take recourse to sec. 147/148 proceedings by recording the necessary reasons - HELD THAT:- We see no merit in Revenue's instant arguments. It is evident from a perusal of the Assessing officer's reopening reasons recorded in assessee's case that he has nowhere recorded any reasons to believe that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed details of her taxable income. The CIT(A) has already considered various judicial precedents whilst deciding the instant legal issue in assessee's favour. As decided in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar [2004 (2) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] it is needless to mention that the reopening reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No addition or deletion can be made on those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn on the basis of the reasons not recorded. It is for the Assessing officer to disclose and open his mind through the reasons recorded by him, he has to speak through his reasons". And also that "the reasons should be self-explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing for reasons. Assessing officer's reopening reasons have failed in not only recording any such failure in light of sec. 147(1) 1st proviso on assessee's part but also he made it clear that the same "were in order to verify the above facts". We thus uphold CIT(A)'s findings deciding the instant legal issue in assessee's favour. Loan(s) taken from Mr. T Nanda K and treated as unexplained u/s. 68 - necessary condition of filing Overseas remittance certificate for the corresponding money transfer from USA had not been complied with at the assessee's behest - HELD THAT:- The same is found to be against the clinching facts recorded in CIT(A)'s order that the impugned sum had nowhere came from any foreign bank account but from a domestic account of the credit party only. The Revenue's sole substantive argument in favour of impugned addition is outrightly rejected. Coupled with this, the assessee has also filed relevant details of bank account in issue that the impugned sum stood duly repaid vide cheque dated 18.2.2008 cleared on 27.2.2008. Revenue's instant former substantive ground fails therefore. Unexplained bank deposits addition - HELD THAT:- As evident from the case records that the impugned sum had been wrongly taken as ₹ 1,44,00,000/- towards unexplained deposits in the bank account wherein the actual figure was ₹ 54 lakhs only and the assessee's cash flow statement had duly explained the source to the tune of ₹ 67,08,674/- - Decided against revenue.
|