TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng reopening u/s 147 is dismissed. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of Ld.CIT(A) as the assessee has not supported his submissions by filing any contrary evidences. Hence, Ground of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. Addition u/s 69A on Unexplained money - We do not see any infirmity into the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) as the assessee had only made a bald statement without giving any supportive evidences regarding his business. No detail is furnished by the assessee regarding whom spare parts as claimed by the assessee were supplied and the complete details of parties to whom he supplied computer parts. In the absence of such material evidences, we do not see any reason to interfere in the findings of the authorities below. Therefore, Ground of appeal raised by the assessee are rejected and same are dismissed. Addition made in respect of the salary income - We find that the Assessing Officer did not make any inquiry from the employer of the assessee whether he had actually received the salary. Merely, offer made by the assessee in our considered view, ought not to have been taken as a conclusive evidence of earning salary income by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he remarks No such person in the given address . Under these facts, the appeals were taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee. 4. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) which was duly served on the assessee. In response thereto, Ld.AR for the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and was provided copy of the reasons recorded. The reasons for re-opening was supplied to the assessee after having filed the return as directed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had filed return declaring loss of ₹ 10,117/-. Thereafter, a notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. In response thereto, Ld.AR for the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that as per P L A/c, the total sales of ₹ 1,83,000/- was declared by the assessee for Financial Year 2008-09 for which net loss of ₹ 10,117/- was claimed. However, it was observed as per the bank statement of the ICICI, Dariyaganj, New Delhi that a total credit of ₹ 9,14,800/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Aggrieved against this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. Ground of appeal Nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(e) are on legality of the action u/s 147 of the Act. As no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, we proceed on the basis of the submissions made by the assessee before the authorities below. 9. Ld. Sr. DR, Sh. Ashok Gautam supported the orders of authorities below. He submitted that there is no illegality in the orders of the authorities below. The law is clear on the issue of re-opening. The Assessing Officer was satisfied after having received the information of cash deposit in the bank accounts of the assessee that the income has escaped assessment. He relied on the order of Ld.CIT(A). 10. We have heard Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has given a detailed finding on the issue of re-opening by observing as under:- I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the ease with regard to reopening u/s 147, the additional ground raised by the appellant is a legal one and it does not require any further enquiry or investigation. The addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ni Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), What is the ultimate result of enquiry is not material for deciding the jurisdiction of the AO to reopen assessment, even if it is found ultimately that there has been no escapement of income - Mahasukhram Madan Lai v CAT (1955) 28 ITR 299 (Pat.). In the present case the specific information specific to the account number in a particular bank were received, acted upon, further investigated and then sent to the Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer applied his own mind and on the basis of information available on record, not to forget that the appellant has failed to file his return of income for the relevant assessment year, came to a conclusion that the income of ₹ 9,14,800/- has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer is not suppose to arrive at the final conclusion. He is supposed to reach at a reasonable belief, which a prudent man will arrive at, that the income has escaped assessment. It has to be a prima facie case regarding escapement of income. The Assessing Officer is not passing the final judgement. In the case in hand there is no two opinion that the assessee had bank account in which substantial cash was being deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 2,01,500/-. It is also a fact that in these accounts the cash had been deposited. It is also a fact that the appellant had not disclosed these accounts to the department nor had he disclosed the business carried on by him outside the books of accounts. The action initiated by the department was not based on some hearsay or mere suspicion. The action taken by the Department was based on concrete information passed on to Investigation Wing and then eventually to the Assessing Officer from Financial Intelligence Unit. The information passed on with respect to deposits in bank account is also not vague it was concrete and correct to the extent of not only account number, but also the quantum of cash deposits. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant has claimed the cash deposits to be the proceeds of sale of computers and computer parts. However, it remained just a contention not supported by any piece of evidence. The appellant has singularly failed to explain satisfactorily the amount of deposits in his- bank accounts. The action of the appellant is squarely covered under the mischief of section 69A which is reproduced as under:- Sec. 69A:- Unexplained mone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r consideration, no salary income was disclosed for the period from 01.04.2008 to 28.02.2009. 20. We find that the Assessing Officer did not make any inquiry from the employer of the assessee whether he had actually received the salary. Merely, offer made by the assessee in our considered view, ought not to have been taken as a conclusive evidence of earning salary income by the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of any conclusive evidence that the assessee infact had earned salary from M/s. Oldy Goldy Computers, the Assessing Officer was not justified in taking the addition and making the addition on account of earning of salary income. Moreover, if it is presumed that the assessee had earned salary income in that event, the Assessing Officer should have accepted source of deposit made in bank account. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete this addition. Thus, Ground of appeal No.1(h) raised by the assessee is allowed. 21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 22. Now, we take up ITA Nos.350 351/Del/2017 filed by the assessee relating to Assessment Years 2010-11 2011-12 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rving as under:- I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the ease with regard to reopening u/s 147, the additional ground raised by the appellant is a legal one and it does not require any further enquiry or investigation. The additional ground, also goes to the root of the assessment and determination of the tax liability of the appellant. Therefore, the same is being admitted and adjudicated as under:- From the above discussion, it is clear that there are umpteenth number of judicial pronouncements on the issue of reopening of assessment u/s 147. Each set of facts and circumstances present before Assessing Officer a new challenge. There could be similarity and circumstances but there are hardly any circumstances which are identical. Therefore, the conclusion has to be derived on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The words has reason to believe are stronger than the words is satisfied . In other words the AO must form an objective and prima facie opinion himself on the basis of expressed statement or reasons or definite/relevant (and not vague) material in his possession. To put it differently, the words reason to believe s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It has to be a prima facie case regarding escapement of income. The Assessing Officer is not passing the final judgement. In the case in hand there is no two opinion that the assessee had bank account in which substantial cash was being deposited from various parts of the country. It is also a fact that the assessee had not disclosed this account to the department and also not filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer has recorded all this in his reasons and then he took the approval of the competent authority as provided in the Act. Everything is in order. The satisfaction and the reason has to be that of Assessing Officer, not of anybody else. In my humble opinion, the Assessing Officer had enough reasonable and actionable information to arrive at a particular decision. Therefore, the ground challenging reopening u/s 147 is dismissed. 11. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of Ld.CIT(A) as the assessee has not supported his submissions by filing any contrary evidences. Hence, Ground of appeal Nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(e) raised by the assessee are dismissed. 24. Therefore, taking the consistence view, Grounds of appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
