JAGRITI YADAV,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-39(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8073/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 October 2022AY 2010-115 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid because it was based on an erroneous assumption of fact. The assessee had, in fact, filed a return of income under Section 139(1) prior to the reopening.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 based on an AIR report showing cash deposits of Rs. 44,06,470/-. The AO believed the assessee had not filed a return, leading to a best judgment assessment and addition under Section 68.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147. A secondary issue concerned the addition of unexplained cash credit under Section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 68,Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

Hearing: 27.07.2022Pronounced: 25.10.2022

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 01.08.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, New Delhi, for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

In ground nos. 1, 2 and 3, the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Whereas, in ground no. 5 the assessee has challenged the merits of the addition made of Rs.44,06,470/- under section 68 of the Act. Rest of the grounds raised are either general in nature or consequential, hence, do not require specific adjudication.

3.

Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual.

Based on Annual Information Report (AIR) the Assessing Officer noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.44,06,470/- in an account held with HDFC Bank. Alleging that for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee did not file any return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. As alleged by the Assessing Officer, the assessee neither responded to the notices issued under section 148 and 142(1) of the Act, nor participated in the assessment proceeding. Therefore, invoking the provisions of section 144 of the Act, he proceeded to complete the assessment, to the best of his judgment. While doing so, he added back the amount of Rs.44,06,470/- by treating it as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, the appeal was dismissed.

4.

I have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. At the outset, I will address the legal issues 2 | P a g e raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. On perusal of the reasons recorded, a copy of which is placed at page 35 of the paper-book, it is observed that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment assuming that the assessee did not file a return of income for the impugned assessment year, whereas, she had deposited cash amounting toRs.44,06,470/- in her bank account.

However, from the materials placed on record, it is observed, the assessee, in fact, had filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 15.10.2010 offering income of Rs.3,02,190/-.

The aforesaid fact clearly reveals that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on erroneous assumption of fact.

Though, the assessee had raised specific grounds challenging the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on those grounds. Thus, prima facie, it appears, the reasons recorded are not based on the facts available on record. When the assessee has filed a return of income voluntarily under section 139(1) of the Act, formation of belief that income has escaped assessment cannot be arrived at without examining the return of income filed by the assessee. This is essential because, only after 3 | P a g e verifying the return of income the Assessing Officer can come to know whether a particular item of income has been offered to tax or not.

5.

In the facts of the present appeal, admittedly, the Assessing Officer has proceeded to reopen the assessment assuming that the assessee had not filed any return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the formation of belief regarding escapement of income does not have any nexus with the material on record. For this reason alone, the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act has to be declared as invalid.

Accordingly, I do so. Consequently, the impugned assessment order is quashed and the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside.

6.

Since, I have decided the appeal on legal issue, the ground raised on merits, having become academic, is not adjudicated.

7.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th October, 2022

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →