9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itional ground of appeal vide application, dated 7th of July 2021, which was filed on 9th of July 2021, whereby the service of notice u/s 148 by way of affixture without two independent witnesses have been challenged. But during the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee sought to withdraw his request for additional ground of appeal and, therefore, the additional ground of appeal is being dismissed as withdrawn. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer as per the AIR information available that the AO noted that the assessee has deposited a cash of Rs. 71,94,000/- in HDFC Bank, during financial year 2010-11 and that the assessee had not filed his return of income for Asstt. Year 2011-12, relevant to financial year 2010-11, in which, there was deposit of cash of Rs. 71,94,900/- in the Bank Account. 5. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, recorded the reasons for reopening of the case, (APB, Pg. 20 to 21). The reasons recorded u/s 148, by the Assessing Officer reads as under:- "In the present case, the undersigned has information as well as sufficient reasons to believe that income for the A.Y. 2011-12 has escaped assessment owning to non filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nking channels and necessary evidence of the same was filed before the Ld.CIT (A) with a request to admit fresh evidences u/s rule 46A. 8. The remand report was called from the Assessing Officer on the basis of written submissions of assessee, and evidences furnished by assessee. The remand report of the AO was furnished vide letter, dated 21.08.2019, which have been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 3.3, at pages 4 to 6 of the order and thereafter, it was given to the assessee so submit his counter comments on 15.10.2019, which have been reproduced in para 3.4, at pages 6 to 9 of the order. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has given his finding on the issue of notice u/s 148 in para 4.1 of the order and has dismissed the ground of appeal that since there was cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee, higher than the taxable income and assessee was a non-filer of Income tax returns and accordingly confirmed the issuance of notice u/s 148 on page 9 and 10 of the order of CIT(A). 10. The Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the addition of Rs. 74,41,900/- on merits as made by the Assessing Officer on account of 'cash deposits' in the assessee's bank account and has confirmed such addition by givin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficient to form a reason to believe, that the income of assessee had escaped assessment and for that the Ld. Counsel of assessee, relied upon the judgment of 'Chandigarh Bench' in the case of Smt. Charanjit Kaur, reported in 88 ITR (Trib) 414 and also another judgement of Chandigarh Bench in the case of Smt. Gurdish Kaur Khullar in ITA No. 121/Chd/2020 for A.Y. 2011-12 and, therefore, pleaded that there was no jurisdiction with the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment u/s 148 because source of deposit need not necessarily be income of the assessee. 14. On legal issue, on account of incorrect content of notice, there was no valid jurisdiction with the AO and it was pleased that the assessment proceedings be quashed and on merits even, no addition was called for. 15. Per contra, the Ld. DR argued that there was valid information for the purposes of issuance of notice u/s 148 with regard to the bank deposits in the name of assessee. She submitted that it was a fact that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration and the deposits in the Bank Account of assessee, being much more than the exempted limit and, therefore, there was a valid r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank account was less than amount mentioned in reopening notice. Therefore, reasons recorded by AO were not emerging from record available with him. AO recorded reasons which were not found to exist on record, therefore, reassessment framed deserved to be quashed." 19. Similarly, in the judgment of 'Smt. Monika Rani (Supra) of Chandigarh Bench of ITAT by relying upon various judgments, the assessment had been quashed with the following observation:- "In the present case also the AO reopened the assessment on the basis of wrong facts, so respectfully following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referred cases. I am of the view that the reopening of the assessment in the present case was not valid, accordingly, the same is quashed." 20. We have also gone through the judgment of 'Jaspal Singh' (supra), where earlier judgment in the case of 'Monika Rani' and 'Sagar Enterprises' of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported in 257 ITR 335 have been followed and in para 8.2, of the said judgment, it has been held as under:- "8.2 Considering the legal position and similar set of facts, the position of law as summed up has been relied upon: "10.6 In the present case also the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
