TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings does not mean that the jurisdiction of the authorities u/s 148 of the act would be excluded when the issue involved in the proceeding u/s 148 is not the same as that being considered u/s 251 - The power u/s 148 is an independent power and would not stand excluded on exercise of powers of appellate jurisdiction by the CIT(A) u/s 251. Moreover, the impugned reassessment notice has been issued within four years from the relevant assessment year and the only requirement to be satisfied is reason to believe. Prima facie, the contention of the Petitioner that the details of the cash deposits had been disclosed by him in the income tax returns is not correct, as the assessee in his return of income in row 14 Detail of all the bank accounts held in India at any time during the previous year (excluding dormant accounts) has only mentioned detail of cash deposited in the Corporation Bank account and has not mentioned cash deposits in any other bank accounts. As decided in Chhabil Das Agarwal, ( 2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT ) has held that as the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides complete machinery for assessment/reassessment of tax, assessee is not per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment order dated 26th December, 2019 the Petitioner preferred an Appeal which is currently pending adjudication before the CIT (A) at NFAC. 5. During the pendency of the appeal for the year under consideration before the NFAC, the respondent issued the impugned reassessment notice dated 28th March, 2021 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reassess the income of the petitioner for the Assessment year 2017-2018 qua cash deposit of Rs.12,50,000/- made in the Punjab National bank. The Petitioner filed his return of income in response to the reassessment notice on 21st April, 2021 at the returned income of Rs.28,42,430/-. Subsequently, several notices under Section 143(2) of the Act and Section 142(1) of the Act were issued to the petitioner for seeking information regarding the source of another cash deposit of Rs.12,50,000/-. It is the Petitioner case that he had furnished a detailed reply dated 10th January, 2022 to the notices explaining that the cash deposits of Rs.12,50,000/- made in the joint accounts held by the Petitioner with his wife in Punjab National Bank and Bank of India were made out of the cash that was inherited by his wife upon death of her father. 6. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposits were disclosed by the Petitioner to the authorities in his replies submitted to the assessing officer during the proceedings under scrutiny assessment as well as his income tax returns. He emphasised that no additions on the basis of the same were made during scrutiny proceedings by the authorities. 10. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Gurinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog v. Commission of Income Tax, (2012) 348 ITR 170 (Delhi) wherein it has been held as under:- While framing an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, any of the following situation may occur: .. (c) he makes no addition in respect of some of the items, though in the course of hearing before him holds a discussion of such items of income; .. (e) further another situation may arise, where an item or items of income or expenditure, incurred and claimed is not at all considered and an assessment is framed, as a result thereof, a prejudice is caused to the Revenue, or In category falling in (c) and (e), the Commissioner of Income-tax has been empowered to take an appropriate action und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt by setting aside the original one and on remand the proceedings are pending before the Assessing Officer for assessment afresh. 35. At this stage, let us consider the strength of the submissions advanced by Mr. Desai, appearing for the revenue that proceedings under s. 147 are distinct and separate from proceedings under s. 263. Merely because proceedings under s. 263 are initiated by issuing a notice in that behalf, the Assessing Officer is not debarred from initiating proceedings under s. 147 as held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of C.I.T. v. GulamRasool (supra). 36. The law laid down in the said judgment is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. It is no doubt true that operation of both these sections is somewhat similar in the sense if the Commissioner under s. 263 of the Act finds that the assessment order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue he can reopen the issue, at the same time, the Assessing Officer, under ss. 147 and 148 of the Act can reopen assessment on account of income having escaped assessment. Sections 147 and 148 can be pressed into service to reopen assessment so long as the proceedings under section 263 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in the present cases, the reassessment notice under Section 148 deals with the alleged cash deposit of Rs.12,50,000/- made by the assessee in the Punjab and National Bank and Bank of India. The cash deposit of Rs.12,50,000/- was not adjudicated upon in the Section 143(3) proceedings. In fact, the Assessment Order dated 26th December, 2019 deals with another cash deposit of Rs.34,54,500/- made by the assessee in the Corporation Bank and accordingly an amount of Rs.28,75,000/- was added to his returned income after considering his reply. Consequently, the assessing officer did not consider the cash deposits of Rs.12,50,000/- in Punjab National Bank and Bank of India during scrutiny assessment proceedings. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) while answering the question what is meant by the term change of opinion? has held as under: Thus if a subject matter, entry or claim/deduction is not examined by an Assessing Officer, it cannot be presumed that he must have examined the claim/deduction or the entry, and therefore, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 143(3) of the Act, the addition of Rs.28,75,000/- was made on the basis of cash deposit of Rs.34,54,500/- in Corporation Bank. Consequently, the transaction under consideration before the Appellate Authority under Section 251 of the Act is a different transaction than the one under consideration in the reassessment proceedings. 16. The aforementioned case is also distinguishable because the present cases do not pertain to a proceedings under Section 263 of the Act but rather a proceedings under Section 251 of the Act pending before the CIT(A). 17. This Court is also of the opinion that just because the Appellate Authority has the power to modify an assessment order with regard to a source of income that has not been considered during assessment proceedings does not mean that the jurisdiction of the authorities under Section 148 of the act would be excluded when the issue involved in the proceeding under Section 148 of the Act is not the same as that being considered under Section 251 of the Act. The power under Section 148 of the Act is an independent power and would not stand excluded on exercise of powers of appellate jurisdiction by the CIT(A) under Section 251 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
