Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (12) TMI 982

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he business of repairing of motorcars. For the Assessment Year 2008-09, the petitioner filed return of income disclosing total income of Rs. 4.62 lacs (rounded off). Such return was taken in scrutiny. The Assessing Officer framed scrutiny assessment, assessing total income of the assessee at Rs. 5.39 lacs (rounded off). The Assessing Officer later on issued impugned notice seeking to reopen such assessment for which he had recorded following reasons:- "Reasons for belief that income was escaped: In this case scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act for A.Y. 2008-09 was completed on 29.12.2010 determining Total income at Rs. 5,39,890/-. Later on ITS details were uploaded on ITD system, which were not verified at the time of scrutin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... corded for issuing the impugned notice in which it has been stated that there were cash deposits by the petitioner in two bank accounts maintained by him, viz. in the Bank of India and Kotak Mahindra Bank. According to such reasons, the assessee had not disclosed such bank accounts before the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment. According to the Assessing Officer, therefore, such cash deposits in the said accounts escaped assessment. Counsel submitted that the account in Bank of India being Current Account No.8109 where such cash deposit of Rs. 10.72 lacs was made formed part of the audited accounts of the petitioner. During assessment, the Assessing Officer sought further information about the bank account of the petitione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be judged on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. We may recall the reason for reopening the assessment was that the petitioner assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 10,72 lacs in his account in Bank of India and Rs. 14.67 lacs in his account in Kotak Mahindra Bank. According to the Assessing Officer, these deposits escaped assessment since the bank accounts in question had not been disclosed by the assessee. He was emphatic that on verification of balance sheet and assessment records, it is found that the assessee had not disclosed the said bank accounts and therefore, the cash deposits in the said accounts escaped assessment. 6. With respect to Current Account No.8109 of Bank of India, this ground is wholly baseless. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aid bank account as on 31.03.2008 was Rs. 1,22,441/-, which was the same as per the bank statement and that therefore there was no no need for any reconciliation. Thus, when this bank account was not only disclosed by the petitioner at the outset along with return but was also noticed by the Assessing Officer during scrutiny, the main foundation of the allegation of the cash deposit having escaped to the notice of the Assessing Officer of the bank account not having been disclosed, stands falsified. The question of application of Explanation-1 to Section 147 of the of the Act would simply not arise. Even otherwise, it would appear that the petitioner gave full details of the bank account. During scrutiny assessment, if the Assessing Officer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in respect of cash deposits of Rs. 10,72,000/- in the Bank of India and Rs. 14,67,075/- in the Kotak Mahindra Bank totaling to Rs. 25,39,075/- during the assessment proceedings. It is therefore, clear that the cash deposits in the above accounts has escaped the assessment." 10. The disposal of the objections was thus done in a mechanical manner. Even today, the Department has not been able to bring on record anything to suggest that the petitioner's frontal assertion that he did not have any bank account in Kotak Mahindra Bank nor did he make any cash deposit in the said bank account as alleged, is false. In fact, the petitioner reconciled the said amount of Rs. 14,67,075/- by pointing out that this was exactly the same amount which t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates