TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to validity of reassessment proceedings are dismissed. Assessee admittedly did not appear before the Assessing Officer. However, before the CIT(A) the assessee explained the reasons for non-appearance which was due to death of the father of the counsel of the assessee. CIT(A) should have accepted the additional evidences filed before him showing that such deposits were out of sale of certain agricultural lands on different dates and could have obtained a remand report from the A.O. Since there was non-compliance before the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A) did not accept the additional evidences, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case. - Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.3817/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2018 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he taxable income of the assessee u/s 144 of the IT Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, he noted that there are various cash deposits in the bank accounts and there are also certain withdrawals on different dates. After considering the withdrawals to be explained for the subsequent deposits, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 20,30,415/- u/s 68 of the IT Act. 4. Before CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of the reopening of the assessment as well as the addition on merit. The assessee tried to file certain sale deeds to explain the source of such cash deposits being sale of agricultural land. However, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed both the grounds. So far as the validity of the reassessment proceedings was concerned, basically it was challenged before the CIT(A) regarding non-service of notice u/s 148. However, he observed that notice was duly served by RPAD which was never returned back by the Postal Authorities and another notice u/s 148 was also served on the daughter of the assessee on 29th March, 2017 which is much before the completion of the assessment. There was no protest or letter from the side of the assessee or her counsel with rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rbitrary and unlawful addition of ₹ 20,30,415 without appreciating that bank statement of the concerned period has not been objectively appreciated as per law; 5.1 That Ld CIT-A seriously erred in confirming the arbitrary and unlawful addition of ₹ 20,30,415 without appreciating that section 68 of the Act cant apply to bank statement etc which makes the addition as bad in law. Natural Justice serious violation : Makes the assessment a nullity 6. That orders passed by Ld AO and Id CIT-A are bad in law as Ld AO passed the order u/s 144 in strangulation of principles of natural justice ( audi altrem partem ) which makes the entire proceedings nullity ( coram non judice ) in eyes of law. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions:- i) Delhi ITAT SMC Bench . in Case . Bhajan Lal Order dated .20-09-2018 ii) Delhi IT AT F Bench, in Case . Pati Ram Vill-Kadipur order dated. 07- 09-2018 iii) Delhi ITAT SMC Bench. in Case. Shri Jagat Singh order dated. 04-09- 2018 iv) Pune ITAT SMC Bench. in Case. Zaheer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39; to initiate valid reassessment proceedings 2. Aradhna Estate (P.) Ltd.Vs PCIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 119 where Hon ble Gujarat High Court held that where reassessment proceedings were initiated on basis of information received from Investigation wing that assessee had received certain amount from shell companies working as an accommodation entry provider, merely because these transactions were scrutinised by Assessing Officer during original assessment, reassessment could not be held unjustified. 3. Pushpak Bullion (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 84 (Gujarat) where Hon ble Gujarat High Court held that where investigation wing of department had during course of investigation in case of a third party found that he was indulged in providing accommodation entries and bogus bills, and assessee had made sizeable purchases from him, reopening notice against assessee was justified 4. Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs DCIT [2017] taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat) where Hon ble Gujarat High Court held that where material recovered in search of another person indicated that assessee had received bogus share applications through accommodation entries, since assessee was beneficiary, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alid despite the AO not passing speaking order against objections filed by the assessee. Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel Vs ITO [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/[2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) where Hon ble Delhi High Court held as follows: It is true that in the communications, the petitioner has requested for supply of documents. However, the petitioner also raised the objections to the Assessing Officer exercising the powers of reassessment. In true spirit if these communications were examined, the Assessing Officer would have realised that the assessee was objecting to the process of reopening. In terms of decision of Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19/[2002] 125 Taxman 963, the Assessing Officer ought to have disposed of the objections. Ordinarily, we would have insisted on Assessing Officer doing so. However, facts in the present case are somewhat peculiar and no useful purpose would be served in ensuring only cosmetic purpose of completion of formality and then inviting a fresh litigation. Under the circumstances, we have examined the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the reopening also 11. Mohammedally Noorbhov B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of information on a question of law. Reopening of case under section 147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in law 17. ACIT Vs Raiesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd [2007] 161Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC) where Hon ble Supreme Court held that so long as the conditions of section 147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceedings under section 147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings, even when intimation under section 143(1) has been issued. ADANI EXPORTS v. DCIT[1999] 240 ITR 224 (Guj) was distinguished. 18. Yuvraj v. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC) (Copy enclosed) where Hon ble Supreme Court held that points not decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3) was not a case of change of opinion. It was held that assessment was reopened validly. 19. Paramount Intercontinental Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (2017-T1OL-376-HC-DEL-IT) where Hon ble Delhi High Court held that when assessee himself is unable to satisfactorily explain correctness of the entries made in his books, he cannot chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge deposits in her bank account maintained with Syndicate Bank. The above information was received from the CIB Kanpur. The Assessing Officer had given due opportunity to the assessee to explain the source, but, there was no compliance for which the Assessing Officer, after recording the reasons and after obtaining due permission from the Pr. CIT, Meerut issued notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. Under these circumstances, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer cannot be held as invalid. The various decisions relied on by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the instant case are not applicable since in all those cases either the assessees were regularly filing income-tax returns or the reopening was made on one issue and addition was made on some other issue. Therefore, those decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. If the plea of the ld. counsel for the assessee that in case of a non-filer of tax returns, assessments cannot be reopened on the basis of AIR information that assessee has made huge cash deposits in the bank account is accepted, then the provisions of section 147 and 148 in the statute will become redundant. Accordingly, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
