9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls available with the department, the assessee had deposited cash in his bank account for Rs. 34.60 lakhs during FY 2011-12. An information was received from DIT(I&CI), Pune, the total cash withdrawal during F.Y. 2011-12 was Rs. 14.67 lakhs only. Thus the sources of balance cash deposit are remained unproved. The revenue authorities after recording proper reasons, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 12.12.18 which was duly served upo0n the assessee. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 10.01.19 stated that the return of income for AY 2012-13 filed on 18.07.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 22,01,115/- may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Further the assessee in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, submitted the details of sources of cash deposit made into his bank account during the FY 2011-12. The assessee has submitted the cash withdrawal of last 3 years i.e. from FY 2009-10 ranging Rs. 500/- to 1000/- stating the said amount was re-deposited into bank in the relevant year. It was explained by the assessee that the cash was re-deposited which was withdrawn during previous years and submitted the details of bank statement of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of AO by observing that no cogent explanation was furnished by the assessee in respect of cash deposit and nature of source of money. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the explanation of the assessee before the AO shows that the assessee had not explained the transactions of cash withdrawals and deposits in a precise manner. Regarding the other addition of Rs. 30,16,343/-, Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee had not substantiated the genuineness of the loan transactions by making proper documentary evidences viz. copies of the returns of income of the lender company, along with their audited financial statements, copies of the bank accounts of the lender companies and the affidavits of the directors of the lender companies wherein they had confirmed the loan transactions. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee preferred the appeal before us raising the following revised grounds:- 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts confirming the assessment order passed by the Learned A.O. u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. a. The Learned A.O. erred in not obtaining the Sanction u/s. 151(2) of the Jt/Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al as the approval has not been given by the competent authority as required in section 151(2) of the Act. Therefore, we proceed to decide the legal ground first and if found necessary, then we will proceed to decide the other grounds on merits. 7. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the notice issued on 10.09.2018 u/s 148 of the Act was beyond 4 years from the expiry of the concerned assessment year. It is further submitted by Ld. AR that section 151(2) of the Act provides that sanction for reopening of assessment after 4 years was required to be given by the Joint Commissioner, but the sanction in this case has been given by Pr. CIT, Thane. It is therefore argued by Ld. AR that the said sanction for reopening is bad in law because the Pr. CIT was not the competent authority. Ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghanshyam Khabrani vs. ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom). 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the judgment of lower authorities stating that reopening was valid and the additions were made as per law, accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and also gone the relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xw Assessing officer who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. The expression "Joint Commissioner" is defined in Section 2(28C) to mean a person appointed to be a Joint Commissioner of Income Tax or an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 117(1). In the present case, the record before the Court indicate that the Assessing Officer submitted a proposal on 28 March 2011 to the CIT(1) Thane through the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range (I) Thane. On 28 March 2011, the Additional CIT forwarded the proposal to the CIT and after recording a gist of the communication of the Assessing Officer stated that : "As requested by the A.O. Necessary approval for issue of notice u/s. 148 may kindly be granted in the case, if approved." On this a communication was issued on 29 March 2011 from the office of the CIT (1) conveying approval to the proposal submitted by the Assessing officer. There is merit in the contention raised on behalf of the Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
