FALGUNI JAGDISH RAVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, with the assistance of learned Departmental Representative, we have gone through the record carefully and proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.

On our direction, the learned Departmental Representative has filed a copy of reasons recorded for re-opening of the assessment. A perusal of the record would indicate that the assessee has not filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessment was re-opened by issuance of Falguni Jagdish Raval Vs. ITO AY : 2010-11 2 notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) on 29.03.2017. In response to that, the assessee has filed the return on 01.09.2017 and declared an income of Rs.1,92,898/-. A perusal of the reasons placed before us would indicate that the reasons were recorded on the basis of AIR information exhibiting the fact that the assessee had made several transactions in shares and securities to the tune of Rs.99,94,328 and accordingly this income has escaped assessment. However, the Assessing Officer, while passing the assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, did not make any addition with regard to share transactions; rather he has made an addition of Rs.6,14,111/-, which was deposited in cash in IDBI bank account. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are available in a Performa which contains “Sr. No.”, “Points” and “Particulars”. At Sr. No. 06, the narrations are “the quantum of income/wealth which has escaped assessment – Rs.99,94,328/-“. Thus, according to the reasons, this was the escaped income; however, no addition of this income has been made. Recently, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani, [2013] 355 ITR 172 (Guj), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Vs CIT, 336 ITR 136 (Del HC) and also Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 (Bom) have held that if no additions are being made on an issue for which an assessment was re-opened, then any other escaped income came to the notice of the Assessing Officer during the re- assessment proceedings cannot be added. In the present case, learned Assessing Officer has not made any addition to the issue on which the assessment was re-opened. Therefore, he cannot make addition on account of unexplained cash credit deposited in IDBI Bank. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and addition of Rs.6,14,111/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.