TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned 'CIT (Appeals)' has grossly erred in upholding the validity of initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the 'Act'. 2. Because learned 'CIT (Appeals)' failed to appreciate that there was no valid reason assigned by the 'AO' in the purported 'reasons to believe' and the reasons recorded by the 'AO' were based on conjectures, surmises and in bad faith. The proceedings so initiated were illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 3. Because, learned 'CIT (Appeals)' while upholding the validity of assessment proceedings under section 148 of the 'Act' on the basis of reason of deposits of ₹ 1,760,000/- in saving bank account grossly erred in ignoring the binding precedents in following cases a) Praveen Kumar Jain vs. ITO (Order dated 17.12.2015 in ITA no. 1331/Del/2015 (ITAT, Delhi) b) Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO reported as (2015) 68 SOT 197 (Delhi -Trib) c) Amrik Singh vs. ITO reported as (2016) 159 ITD 329 (Amritsar -Trib) referred and relied upon before him on the issue. 4. Because, learned 'CIT (Appeals)' has erred in not appreciating that no addition was made by the &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Commissioner of Income Tax Range-3 Mathura. 3. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee relied on the following case laws: a) Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO reported as (2015) 68 SOT 197 (Delhi -Trib) (APB, 16 to 20). b) Amrik Singh vs. ITO reported as (2016) 159 ITD 329 (Amritsar -Trib) (APB, 21 to 34). c) Praveen Kumar Jain vs. ITO Order dated 17.12.2015 in ITA no.1331/Del/2015 (ITAT, Delhi) (APB 35 to 44). 4. The ld. CIT(A), however, has held as under: I find that the appellant had not filed any return of income for the impugned A.Y. and on receipt of the information that as much as ₹ 17,60,000/- had been deposited by the appellant in his saving bank account, the A.O. had reopened the assessment proceedings, Hence, as regards the first objection, it becomes evident that a specific and undeniable piece of information of deposit of a big sum of cash by the appellant, a non-filer of return of income, was available with the A.O. and so the reason to believe that income had escaped assessment was in no way based on conjectures or surmises. It is true that mere cash deposit in a bank account cannot constitute a reason to believe that income had escaped ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me from such a business has not been returned by the assessee. As we do not have the liberty to examine these reasons on the basis of am/ other material or fact, other than the facts set out in the reasons so recorded, it is not open to us to deal with the question as to whether the assessee could be said to be engaged in any business; all that is to be examined is whether the fact of the deposits, per se, in the bank account of the assessee could be basis of holding the view that the income has escaped assessment. The answer, in our humble understanding, is in negative. The Assessing Officer has opined that an income of ₹ 10,24,100/- has escaped assessment of income because the assessee has ₹ 10,24,100/- in his bank account but then such in opinion proceeds on the fallacious assumption that the bank deposits constitute undisclosed income, and overlooks the fact that the sources of deposit need not necessarily be income of the assessee. Of course, it may be desirable, from the point of view of revenue authorities, to examine the matter in detail, but then reassessment proceedings cannot be resorted lo only to examine the facts of a case, no matter how desirable Shut be, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... soever vague and indefinite or distant, remote and farfetched, which would warrant the formation of the belief relating to escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment. 10. It was further observed as follows: 8. Let us, in the light of this legal position, revert to the facts of the case before us. All that the reasons recorded for reopening indicate is that cash deposits aggregating to ₹ 10,24,100/- have been made in the hank account of the assessee, but the mere fact that these deposits have been made in a bank account does not Indicate that these deposits constitute an income which has escaped assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment do not make out a case that the assessee was engaged in some business and the income from such a business has not been returned by the assessee. As we do not have the liberty to examine these reasons on the basis of any other material or fact, other than the facts set out in the reasons so recorded, it is not open to us to deal with the question as to whether the assessee could be said to be engaged in any business; all that is to be examined is whether the fact of the deposits, per se. in the bank acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
