TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. Based on these facts, the ld. Pr.CIT finally granted the approval. Therefore, it was not a case where the prudent person could have taken another view or opinion. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the validity of reopening of the assessment. Unexplained cash Deposits u/s 68 - Past saving / life long savings - Held that:- except the cash book prepared by the assessee in support of the source of deposit, no other material was produced by the assessee regarding the past savings of the assessee. - Once the assessee is capable of earning income then failure to explain the source of deposit in the bank would attract the provisions of Section 69 of the Act. Hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction. (2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the AO in issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without obtaining sanction uu151 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction. (3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bajaj vs ACIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mumbai Trib) (3) Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No. 132/Del/2018 - ITAT Delhi Bench) Thus the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that ld. Pr.CIT just noted the word Yes and affixed his signature thereunder by granting the approval mechanically and without application of mind to the facts of the case. Therefore, the said approval granted by the ld. Pr.CIT is not the valid sanction and consequently the reopening of the assessment is liable to be quashed. 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that when it is a case of deposit of cash in the bank account of the assessee which is not in dispute then the said facts itself constitute the tangible material to form the bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lacs and not filing of the return of income by the assessee itself constitute a tangible material to form the belief that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. We further note that JCIT after considering the reasons also recommended the reasons recorded by the AO for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Based on these facts, the ld. Pr.CIT finally granted the approval. Therefore, it was not a case where the prudent person could have taken another view or opinion. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the validity of reopening of the assessment. 3.1 The Ground No. 3 of the assessee is regarding an addition of ₹ 15.50 lacs made u/s 68 of the Act. 3.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .AR of the assessee submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the Tribunal holding that the assessee could not be credited with having made any income of her own. The ld.AR of the assessee thus contended that when the assessee was not having sufficient income to make deposit in the bank account then the said amount cannot be added to the income of the assessee. 3.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the assessee has failed to explain the source of deposits in the bank. The AO has noted that except claiming the opening balance of ₹ 15.75 lacs to explain the source of deposits in the bank account, the assessee has not produced any evidence for saving of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased on the facts of the case. As regards the decision relied on by the ld.AR of the assessee in the case of CIT vs Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (supra), it is pertinent to note that in the said case it was found that the assessee was even not capable of earning income due to her age at that point of time. The assessee also explained the source of investment as income from the properties which were left by her mother s first husband. Though the said explanation was not found to be satisfactory, however, by considering the surrounding circumstances that the assessee being a Muslim lady of 20 years was not having any source of income, therefore, she was not capable of earning any income. The addition made by the AO was deleted. The said decision was b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
