Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals by the assessee, Smt. Madhu Dwivedi, were against the orders of the CIT(A) which partly upheld the Assessing Officer's additions concerning cash deposits. The proceedings involved reopening under Section 143(3)/148 and 143(3)/147.
Held
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging the reopening validity. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s modified assessment which reduced the addition.
Key Issues
The primary issues were the validity of reopening under Section 148/147 and the merits of the additions made on account of cash deposits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 148, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals & 8037/Del/2019 for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Rohtak’s orders dated 23.07.2018 and 22.07.2019 passed in case nos. 238/16-17 and 375/16-17 involving proceedings under section 143(3)/148 and 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
This assessee’s former appeal raises the following substantive grounds:
1. 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has erred both in law and on facts in party upholding the order of Ld. Assessing Officer and partially confirming the addition of Ld. Assessing Officer in making addition to the tune of Rs. 5,74,682/-.
2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has grossly erred in partially affirming the addition without giving any reason at all and is completely a non-speaking order.
3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has erred in both in law and facts in partially confirming the addition on adhoc/ estimation basis in absence of any material evidence in hand and ignoring the settled position of law that there can be no addition on estimation basis.
4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has grossly erred in settled position of law that reopening/reassessment u/s 148 / 147 of the Income Tax cannot be sustained on the basis of borrowed information and without application of mind.
4. Coming to the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening under section 148/147 of the Act, learned counsel could hardly dispute that the lower authorities herein had taken note of the assessee’s cash deposits followed by the corresponding reopening reasons that her taxable income had escaped assessment. No merit is found therefore in the assessee’s instant first and foremost ground.
5. Next comes this sole issue on merits between the parties wherein the learned CIT(A) has already modified the Assessing Officer’s assessment findings assessing the assessee’s cash deposits/turnover from that @10% to 8% only followed by yet