9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under limited scrutiny (computer aided scrutiny selection) by the respondent department and accordingly a notice dated 24th September, 2018 was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act by the Assessing Officer against the Petitioner raising queries regarding cash deposit made by the Petitioner during the demonetisation period. 3. An assessment order dated 26th December, 2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act for the concerned assessment year 2017-18 at an income of Rs.57,17,430/- making an addition of Rs. 28,75,000/- to the returned income of the Petitioner under Section 69A of the Act on the ground that the Petitioner was not able to satisfactorily explain the source of the fund for the cash deposit of Rs.34,54,500/- made by him in his bank account held with the Corporation Bank during the demonetisation period. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment 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 u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... December, 2019 was framed with additions made on the basis of cash deposit in bank accounts and if certain amounts were left to be added then in such a situation after passing of the assessment order, the power to do so lay with the CIT(A) exclusively. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the impugned notice had been issued by the Respondents without appreciating that the income of Rs.57,17,430/- considered by the Respondent in the show cause notice dated 15th March, 2022 was already under dispute being subject matter of an appeal before the CIT (A) at NFAC. He stated that the assessment had been reopened on the basis of review and re-appreciation of the same material which were subject to verification in the course of original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) which was not permissible in law. He also pointed out that transactions of cash 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 263 of the Act. The relevant extract of the decision in Ardor Technopark Ltd. (supra) is reproduced herein below: "26. The operation of both these sections is some what 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 if he has a reason to believe that Income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Therefore, virtually both the provisions are for reopening the assessment, one at the level of the Commissioner and, other at the level of the Assessing Officer. Now the question is: Whether Assessing Officer can reopen the assessment on account of income escaping assessment, especially, when the Commissioner has reopened the assessment 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax. It was further held that both the authorities can invoke their powers after the assessment order, but both are not exclusive of each other. In the present case, the facts are altogether different. Firstly, in the present case, the notice under s. 148 has been issued after the order under s. 263 was passed. Secondly, the reassessment pursuant to the order under s. 263 has not been finalised at the time of issuance of notice under s. 148 of the Act. Therefore, the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of GulamRasool (supra) does not support the case of the revenue. " 12. He further stated that the impugned assessment order had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the Respondents did not consider the detailed replies filed by the Petitioner during the proceedings. COURT'S REASONING 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) proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fully and truly all material facts necessary for computation of income. .......... In the category of cases falling under clauses (d) and (f), appropriate action under section 147 of the Act can be taken to tax the income which has escaped assessment or had remained to be taxed." 15. Further, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner on the decision in Ardor Technopark Ltd (supra) is misplaced, as in the aforementioned case both the proceedings under Sections 263 and 148 of the Act were initiated on the same issue, namely, claim of 25% depreciation on tin packaging. However, in the present cases, the proceeding under Section 148 of the Act had been initiated on the basis of cash-deposits of Rs.12,50,000/- made in Punjab National Bank and Bank of India whereas in the assessment under Section 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 dist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
