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 1452 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - unexplained source of cash deposit of loan taken from the bank to advance loan to it s members for agricultural activities - as per assessee cash is re-deposited into the bank account in the regular course of business during the year under consideration - CIT(A) sustained the addition on the ground that the assessee-society failed to prove the purpose of taking loan from the bank. HELD THAT - AO had made the addition in absence of return of income either u/sec.139 or u/sec.148 of the Act ignoring the explanation furnished by the assessee-society along with relevant documentary evidences i.e. bank statements etc. - AO also denied the deduction claimed by the assessee-society u/sec.80P disclosed by the assessee-society as it s net profit under the Head Profit and Gain from Business or Profession in absence of filing of return of income u/sec.139 of the Act. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we deem it fit and appropriate to restore the instant issues back to the file of AO for de novo verification after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee society. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee-society are allowed for statistical purposes.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Justification for reopening assessment under section 147 of the Act Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 147 permits reopening of assessment if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reopening must be based on tangible material and proper approval from competent authority is mandatory. The reopening notice under section 148 must be issued within the prescribed time limits. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment after obtaining necessary approval and issued notice under section 148. The reopening was triggered by information available on the Department's Insight Portal regarding the undisclosed cash deposits in the bank account maintained by the assessee-society. Key evidence and findings: The undisclosed cash deposit of Rs. 62,86,015/- in the bank account was not reported in the audit report or earlier returns (which were not filed). The Assessing Officer considered this as a material omission justifying reopening. Application of law to facts: The reopening was procedurally valid as per the record. The Tribunal did not find procedural infirmity in issuance of notice under section 148. Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee contended lack of knowledge and inadvertent non-filing, while the Revenue emphasized concealment and non-disclosure. The Tribunal recognized the reopening as valid but did not decide on merits at this stage. Conclusion: The reopening of assessment was legally justified based on the material available to the Assessing Officer. Issue 2: Whether cash deposits constitute unexplained money under section 69A of the Act Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69A treats cash credits or unexplained cash deposits as income if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source. The burden lies on the assessee to prove the legitimacy of such deposits. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee-society explained that the cash deposits represented loans taken from the bank and re-deposited in the same loan account for onward lending to its members engaged in agricultural activities. Bank statements were furnished to substantiate this. Key evidence and findings: The bank statements were produced only after issuance of the show cause notice. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation and treated the deposits as unexplained money. The CIT(A) upheld this view, citing failure to prove the "purpose" of the loan. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not adequately consider the explanation and documentary evidence furnished by the assessee-society. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided bank statements to prove the source and nature of the deposits. Treatment of competing arguments: Revenue argued concealment and lack of proof regarding the purpose of loans. The assessee pleaded lack of knowledge and bona fide explanation supported by bank records. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's rejection of the explanation without proper verification was not justified. Conclusion: The issue requires de novo verification by the Assessing Officer after giving the assessee an opportunity to prove the source and purpose of the cash deposits. The Tribunal did not uphold the additions at this stage. Issue 3: Deduction under section 80P of the Act in absence of return filing Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 80P grants deduction to cooperative societies on profits from specified activities, subject to filing of return of income under section 139. Non-filing of return generally disentitles the assessee from claiming such deduction. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee-society did not file return of income for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction of Rs. 2,53,315/- claimed under section 80P on this ground. The CIT(A) sustained this disallowance. Key evidence and findings: The assessee admitted non-filing but contended lack of knowledge and sought relief on merits. The Tribunal noted the legal requirement of filing return to claim deduction under section 80P. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the disallowance was legally sustainable in absence of return filing. However, since the entire matter was being remanded for fresh verification, the issue was also restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. Treatment of competing arguments: Revenue emphasized statutory mandate; assessee pleaded ignorance and urged for relief. The Tribunal did not grant relief but allowed reassessment with opportunity to the assessee. Conclusion: Deduction under section 80P is not allowable without return filing, but the issue is to be reconsidered in the fresh proceedings. Issue 4: Treatment of explanation and documentary evidence by Assessing Officer and CIT(A) Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice require that explanations and evidence furnished by the assessee be duly considered before making additions. The burden of proof lies with the assessee to establish genuineness of transactions. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not give due weightage to the bank statements and explanations furnished by the assessee-society. The rejection of the explanation was primarily based on non-filing of return and failure to prove purpose, without detailed scrutiny of evidence. Key evidence and findings: Bank statements and explanations were on record but were not properly analyzed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for fresh verification with opportunity to the assessee. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s approach was not in consonance with principles of fair adjudication. The matter requires fresh adjudication after considering all evidence. Treatment of competing arguments: Revenue relied on procedural lapses and concealment; assessee relied on documentary proof and bona fide explanation. The Tribunal balanced the interests by remanding for fresh hearing. Conclusion: The explanation and evidence must be properly examined in fresh proceedings before making any addition. Issue 5: Sustainability of additions made by Assessing Officer and sustained by CIT(A) Relevant legal framework and precedents: Additions must be based on cogent evidence and proper appreciation of facts. Arbitrary or mechanical additions without due inquiry are not sustainable. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that additions were made mainly due to non-filing of return and unexplained cash deposits without proper consideration of explanations and evidence. Key evidence and findings: The assessee furnished bank statements and explanation during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not conduct thorough inquiry. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal concluded that the additions cannot be sustained without fresh verification and opportunity to the assessee to establish the source and genuineness of transactions. Treatment of competing arguments: Revenue urged confirmation of additions; assessee urged deletion. The Tribunal adopted a neutral stance by remanding the matter. Conclusion: The additions are not sustainable in the present form and require de novo consideration. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "Although the assessee-society had not filed its return of income u/s 139 of the Act, in response to notice u/s 148, the assessee-society has furnished explanation along with relevant bank statement to prove the source of the cash deposit into the bank account. The Assessing Officer has not considered the explanation and evidence in support of the assessee's arguments." "The learned CIT(A) sustained the addition on the ground that the assessee-society failed to prove the 'purpose' of taking loan from the bank. The Assessing Officer made the addition ignoring the explanation furnished by the assessee-society along with relevant documentary evidences." "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore the instant issues back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo verification after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee society." "It is the sole risk and responsibility of the assessee-society to plead and prove its case with supporting documentary evidences as called for by the Assessing Officer in consequential proceedings." Core principles established include:
Final determinations on each issue were that the reopening was valid, but the additions made on account of unexplained cash deposits and disallowance of deduction under section 80P were not sustainable without fresh verification. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and explanations.
|
