TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... soever mentioned regarding any lacunae in the confirmation filed by the assessee in the course of her husband’s assessment proceedings or regarding any investigation done by the AO that could bring out something which would show an escapement of income. Argument of the Ld. DR is that in a case where assessee has not filed a return at all, the reasons that are to be given for reopening should not be seen with the same eyes as in the case of an assessee who had filed a return of income earlier. Even if we accept this contention, reasons given by the Ld. AO for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act, does not give even a hint of any escapement of income or tax. As for the reliance placed by the CIT (A) on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the Revenue, which is now assailed before us by the assessee. 03. Facts apropos are that during the course of assessment proceedings of assessee s husband Shri. Govindappa, it was found by the AO that the said Shri. Govindappa had shown a loan of ₹ 10.77 lakhs as received from the assessee during the relevant previous year. Since assessee had not filed any return for the impugned assessment year, notice u/s.148 of the Act was served on the assessee with prior approval from JCIT, Range-2, Mysuru. Reasons for reopening was furnished to the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings before the CIT (A). Such reasons read as follows : 23/03/2006 It is learnt that the above referred Smt. Prameelama has adva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee at ₹ 9,55213/- for F. Ys. 1991-92 to 1999- 00 and after deducting therefrom various expenditure and outflow due to loans advanced by the assessee during these years came to a conclusion that what could have been available with the assessee for giving a loan during the relevant previous year to her husband was only ₹ 4,60,248/-. Thus out of the sum of ₹ 10,77,000/- shown by assessee as loan given to her husband during the relevant previous year, AO was of the opinion that assessee had explainable source for only ₹ 4,60,248/- being savings from agricultural income. The balance of ₹ 6,16,752/- was added as unexplained investment. 04. Before CIT (A), assessee had sought for the reasons for reopening which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. P. K. Noorjahan [237 ITR 570]. 06. Per contra, Ld. DR strongly supporting the order of CIT (A) submitted that judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of C. M. Mahadeva (supra) did not apply on facts here. According to him in the said case concerned assessee had filed a return u/s.143(1) of the Act and the reassessment proceedings were initiated after processing of such return. As against this, here the assessee had not filed a return of income at all. When no return of income was filed by the assessee, the tests to be applied for determining the relevancy of the reasons was much lighter. As per the Ld. DR when cash loans were found credited by assessee s husband in his bank account for which, source was shown as given by ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . If from such statement he could gather sufficient material to come to a conclusion that there was escapement of income, or even in a case creditor failed to attend the summons, the AO could have resorted to a reopening. No doubt assessee here had not filed a return of income at all. Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act deals with a situation where there has been no return of income filed. Explanation 2 is reproduced hereunder : Explanation - 2. For the purposes of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, namely:-- (a) where no return of income has been furnished by the assessee although his total income or the total income of any other person in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out something which would show an escapement of income. Argument of the Ld. DR is that in a case where assessee has not filed a return at all, the reasons that are to be given for reopening should not be seen with the same eyes as in the case of an assessee who had filed a return of income earlier. Even if we accept this contention, reasons given by the Ld. AO for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act, does not give even a hint of any escapement of income or tax. As for the reliance placed by the CIT (A) on the Hon ble Apex Court judgment in the case of GKN Driveshafts (supra), question there was whether reasons had to be furnished to an assessee and his reply disposed off, before concluding the assessment. In our opinion this case will not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
