ALOK GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1) (INTERNAQTIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

ORDER

PER R.K. PANDA, AM:

2. Since identical grounds have been taken by the assessee in both these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

“An information has been received from ITO (Inv.) Unit-6 that Sh. Alok Gupta maintained savings account bearing No. 0005-119394100 with IndusInd Bank Ltd. where sh. Alok Gupta has received regular inward remittance from UAE amounting to Rs. 1.31 crore. Sh. Alok Gupta is based in Nigeria which raises suspicion on the source of the fund. Subsequently, out of total receipts of Rs. 1.31 crore in the bank account, there were, high value cash withdrawals amounting to Rs. 1.22 crore. The cash withdrawals were always kept below Rs. 10 lakh to avoid reporting. During investigation by the Unit, copy of the above bank account was obtained. When enquired with Sh. Alok Gupta in this regard, he has submitted that he is a non- resident Indian from birth holding Indian Passport and normally resides in Nigeria and United Arab Emirates. sh Alok Gupta has further submitted, that, the remittance of Rs. 1.31 crore were received from African Commodities DMCC towards expenses incurred, for travel related expenses of various employees recruited from India who are working outside India in his group companies. Sh Alok Gupta further submitted that Sh O.P. Mundra was authorized to operate the bank account in his absence in India and withdrawals were made for meeting travel related expenditure of employees recruited from India. However, it is important to mention that Sh. Alok Gupta has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim with regard to the source of the fund. Under these circumstances, the source of the fund received in his above- mentioned bank account remains unexplained for which appropriate remedial action is called for under the IT Act, 1961 to tax the unexplained money/ undisclosed income in relevant A.Ys. He has also not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim with regard to the utilization of the fund. Financial year-wise break-up of credits and withdrawals made during F.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the above bank account are tabulated below:-

F.Y. Total credits/deposits Total withdrawals 2009-10 Rs. 59, 45, 779/- Rs. 59,25,000/- 2010-11 Rs. 2,33,68,263/- Rs. 2,25,98,377/- Total Rs. 2,93,14,042/- Rs 2,85,23,377/- On perusal of bank statement of the assessee, it is found that during the financial year 2009-10, the assessee has withdrawn Rs. 59,25,000/ -in his bank account. The assessee has neither filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11 nor offered, any income for taxation. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income amounting Rs. 59,25,000/-chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in A. Y. 2010-11. This is a fit case for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 needs to be issued to the assessee.”

5.1 The AO, thereafter, specifically asked the assessee to furnish a statement specifying all the remittances made from abroad with date and bank account explaining the source of cash. The assessee submitted that it has received foreign inward remittances from M/s African Commodities DMCC, a UAE based company. The assessee filed requisite details and submitted that it has already proved the identity of foreign party and the source of the amount credited in the bank account of the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee and M/s African Commodities DMCC, both are non-residents of India. So far as copy of financial statement of M/s African Commodities DMCC is concerned, it was submitted that these documents which belong to the third party are confidential documents and are not available with the assessee for further scrutiny. It was submitted that the company is registered and a resident of UAE where no return of income is required to be filed and, hence, the documents named the return of income in the UAE does not exist and cannot be made available. So far as the proof of the amount utilized in India out of the foreign remittances received is concerned, it was submitted that during the year under review, out of the foreign remittance received from M/s African Commodities DMCC, the assessee has made various salary and other travel related payments totaling to Rs.4,51,21,822/- for various employees of group company M/s African Industries Group Ltd, Nigeria. The details of the employees who have been appointed in the group company during the F.Y 2009- 2010 was filed before the AO.

6. However, the AO was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee in absence of proper documentary evidence to his satisfaction. He noted that the assessee has himself transferred to his bank account in India from his bank account abroad and withdrawn cash, the details of which have not been disclosed along with proper documentary evidence. Applying the provisions of section 69A of the Act, the AO made addition of Rs.5,09,31,277/- to the total income of the assessee being the amount received in the bank account and, thus, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,09,58,380/-.

As per information supplied by the AO, the necessary approval was duly obtained in this case by the AO. The evidence in this regard is pasted below: 5.9 in view of the above discussion, the ground of appeal is dismissed.”

7.1 So far as the addition of Rs.5,09,31,271/- made u/s 69A is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the same by observing as under:- “6.2 I have gone through the facts of the case, appellant submission and assessment order of the AO. The relevant facts of the case are that during the FY 2009-10, the assessee has received Rs. 5,09,31,277/- from abroad in his indusInd NRE Account No. 0005119394-100 and Kotak Mahindra Bank NRE Account No. 0198100000040. Subsequently, he has made cash withdrawal for various expenses including travel related and salary expenses for staff. The AO asked the assessee to furnish a statement specifying all the remittances from abroad with date and bank account explaining the source of cash. The appellant submitted vide letter dated 18/12/2017 that the details of foreign remittance received In bank account in India and copy of relevant pages of bank statement of M/s African Commodities DMCC reflecting the payments made to the assessee were provided vide letter dated 16.11.2017.The assessee further submitted vide letter dated 18.12.2017 that the company making remittances is registered and a Resident of U.A.E. where no return of income is required to be filed and hence, such a document namely returns of income in the U.A.E. does not exist and cannot be made available. The relevant extracts of the submission are reproduced as under: "The copy of the financial statement of M/s African Commodities DMCC as sought by your Honour are of third party are confidential documents and hence same are not available to us for yours further scrutiny. Company is registered and a Resident of U.A.E. where no return of income is required to be filed and hence such a document namely returns of income in the U.A.E. does not exist and cannot be made available " 6.3 The appellant also submitted copy of confirmation letter from M/s African Commodities DMCC confirming the remittances made by them. The letter reads as under: "Our company, M/s African Commodities DMCC is a Limited liability company registered in Dubai Multi Commodities Centre, Dubai, UAE which is engaged in the business of General Trading in Steel, Chemicals and other commodities, Mr. Raj Gupta and Mr. Alok Gupta are the ultimate beneficial shareholders of the 8 Company. Mr. Alok Gupta is also the General Manager of our Company. We have been informed by Mr. Alok Gupta that his personal income tax assessment proceedings are ongoing in India for which we have been requested by him to furnish details in connection therewith. In this connection, we confirm that during the period April 2009 to March 2010, we have remitted USD 10,74,390 to his personal bank account In India. Copy of the relevant pages of remittance was made for the purpose of enabling Mr. Alok Gupta to incur various salary, travel and other related payments for various employees of our group company M/s African Industries Group Ltd., Nigeria." 6.4 Further, the appellant submitted that the foreign remittance received from M/s African Commodities DMCC, was utilized for making expenses like salary and other travel related payments. As per the appellant, total sum of Rs. 4,51,21,822/- was spent in respect of salary and other Travel related payments for various employees appointed in group company during FY 2009-10. The appellant contended that since the source of funds have already been proven by way of documentary evidence and thus, the onus cast upon the appellant has been discharged. The appellant also objected to the conclusion of AO that the appellant had transferred money into his Indian bank account from his own foreign bank account. "As regards the utilization of the funds, your Honour may note that no amount utilized has been claimed by the assesse as a deduction while computing his total income. Supporting evidence/documents as requested by the Ld. AO are the documents of third party (i.e. M/s African Commodities DMCC) as these payments are neither Appellant's expenditure nor payments from him and hence same is not available with nor has been thought to be relevant for him to preserve and hence were not furnished." 6.5 I find that there is no dispute regarding source of funds as it is documented that the funds in the account of the assessee were transferred from the bank account of M/s African Commodities DMCC. With this fact of receipt of funds in India, section 5 of income tax act charges such receipt subject to other provisions of the act. So the question arises whether such receipt of fund is in the nature of income or not? Going by the explanation of the assessee, the money withdrawn from bank was utilized to meet expenses in the nature of salary and travel of employers. So, it is a case of receipt and expenditure.

6.6 The appellant was confronted vide email dated 13.11.2018 as to why the receipt in question may not be treated as income of the assessee as per section 5 of the act. The content of the email dated 13.11.2018 reads as under: "Section 5 clearly provides that total income of any previous year of a person who is non resident includes all income from whatever source derived which is received In India. In this case, there is no dispute on the fact that funds have been received in the bank account of the assessee. Now the next question is whatever such funds are in the nature of income or not? In this regard, the onus is on the appellant to evidence that such receipts are not in the nature of income. The appellant has submitted that the funds were received to utilize the same for meeting out expenses in the nature of salary, travel related payments to various employees of Group Company. However, this claim is not backed by documentary evidence. Therefore, the appellant has failed to discharge his onus. Accordingly, you are requested to explain as to why the receipt in question may not be treated as income of the assessee as per the provisions of Income Tax Act? Further, it may be explained as to why the expenses claimed to have been incurred in India against such receipts may not be allowed in the absence of any documentary evidence/vouchers. Your reply in this regard must reach in this office by 23.11.2018." 6.7 In this regard the appellant submitted vide letter dated 23.11.2018 that any reimbursement cannot be treated as income. I have no objection to the plea of the assessee. However, the onus to prove, that the receipt is in the nature of reimbursement, is on the assessee only. 6.8 I find that the appellant's main argument on merit of the case is that the Appellant was in receipt of the said foreign inward remittances from M/s African Commodities DMCC, U.A.E., a Company in which the Appellant is the beneficial shareholder. The Appellant is also the General Manager of the said Company, Such amount was received for the purpose of making various salary & other travel related payments for various employees of group company M/s African Industries Group Ltd, Nigeria. The appellant submitted following documentation in this regard to substantiate the source of receipt: • Copy of all the bank statements and bank summary of the Appellant for the year under review highlighting the amount received from the aforesaid Company; • Copy of the relevant pages of the bank statement of M/s African Commodities DMCC highlighting the payments mode to the Appellant; • Copy of confirmation letter from M/s African Commodities DMCC confirming the remittances made by them.

6.9 Further the appellant took a position that since the source of the funds have already been proven by way of documentary evidence as stated above, the onus cast upon the Appellant has been discharged. 6.10 The appellant also highlighted that AO has erred in concluding (Refer Para No. 5 of his assessment order) that the Appellant had transferred money into his Indian bank account from his own Foreign bank account. 6.11 As regards utilization of funds, the appellant submitted that "no amount utilized has been claimed by the assessee as a deduction while computing his total income. Supporting evidence / documents as requested by the Ld. AO are the documents of third party (i.e. M/s African Commodities DMCC) as these payments are neither Appellant's expenditure nor payments from him and hence same is not available with nor has been thought to be relevant for him to preserve and hence were not furnished." 6.12 In this regard, the appellant submitted list of 120 employees without mentioning any specific amount of expenditure against the respective name. Further, the appellant also submitted confirmation of 44 employees regarding the fact of receipt of salary and travel related expenses without any date of receipt of such cash. It is also interesting to note that against the name of 25 employees, even their date of joining and date of birth are left blank. 6.13 I find that mere submission of confirmation without any mention of date of such cash payment cannot be entertained as corroborative evidence to demonstrate the fact of incurring such expenditure. The mode of payment being in cash, does put heavy onus on the assessee to demonstrate that it was utilized for the business of M/s African Commodities DMCC. Moreover, the appellant has failed to submit evidence of booking of such expenses in the books of account of M/s African Commodities DMCC. It is also interesting to note that it is not a case where such disbursement of cash to employees is made in routine manner for every month and over the years. It is a solitary instance where such disbursement in cash has taken place. In such a scenario, I find that with the available material on record as discussed above, the assessee has failed to discharge the onus to show that the receipt was truly in the nature of reimbursement. The plea of the appellant regarding the fact of making cash payment to employees for their travel and salary is not acceptable also because of the fact that why the appellant would not have arranged for travel tickets on his own through travel agent as against making cash payment to the employees in order not only to ensure better deal from travel agent but more importantly, to ensure that the cash has been used for the assigned purpose as against leaving it to the discretion of the employee. 6.14 The appellant further argued that the aforesaid addition has been made wrongly by the AO under provisions of section 6SA of the act. The provisions of section 69A of the act read as under: 11 " Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, Jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, Jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.]" 6.15 The appellant highlighted that from the wordings of section 69A of the Act, what is necessary is the explanation of source of money which the Appellant is owning and which is NOT recorded in his books of accounts. The satisfaction of twin conditions is required for the purpose of invoking the provisions of section 59A. The appellant pointed out that it is clear that the provisions of section 69A can be invoked only when the Appellant is liable to and has maintained books of accounts. 6.16 I find that the provisions of section 69A nowhere mandate the existence of books of accounts. It only provides that if the assessee has maintained books of accounts, in that case, the provisions are invoked if such money, bullion, Jewellery or other valuable article is not recorded in the books of account. However, it nowhere mentions that the provisions would not be invoked if the books of accounts are not maintained. In other words, it only puts additional condition that if any books of accounts are maintained by the assessee, then such money etc. should not be recorded in such books of accounts. 6.17 The appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhaichand Gandhi [2013] 141 ITR 67/30 taxmann.com 220. However, I find that the aforesaid decision is in respect of provisions of section 68 of the act whereas the present case involves addition under section 69A of the act. The appellant is found to be the owner of money which has been withdrawn from the bank account as per the facts of the case. The appellant has claimed the nature of such receipt as reimbursement of expenses. However, in the absence of any evidence to incur such expenses, the aforesaid receipt is income from other source in the hands of the appellant. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the argument of the appellant. Hence, the ground of appeal is dismissed.”

“1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the learned Assessing Officer in re-opening the Appellant’s assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) here more particularly failed to note that- (a) the assessment of the Appellant had been re-opened on basis of information from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department - which information was not definite to support the re-opening and (b) the learned Assessing Officer had re-opened the assessment only on basis of such information and not on basis of his own belief that the income of the Appellant had escaped assessment. According to the Appellant, the re-assessment is illegal and deserves to be quashed in appeal.

3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining addition of Rs.5,09,31,277 made by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of remittances received by the Appellant in his bank account from one, M/s African Commodities DMCC, Dubai. In sustaining this addition, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has disregarded the Appellant’s explanations that the remittances were not his income as the same were made by African Commodities DMCC, Dubai to reimburse him business expenditures incurred on its behalf. The addition of Rs. 5,09,31,277 u/s 69A sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous and deserves to be deleted in appeal.

4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in sustaining the action of the learned Assessing Officer in taxing the Appellant on the whole of remittances amount of Rs. 5,09,31,277/- u/s 69A without allowing deduction for any expenditure incurred by the Appellant from the remittances.

This action of the lower authorities may be corrected in appeal by allowing appropriate deduction for the expenditure.

5. Both the lower authorities erred in passing their respective orders without granting the Appellant an adequate opportunity of being heard. The orders passed by them are in contravention of the principles of natural justice and bad in law.

10.1 Referring to the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sbs Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, vide (SB), he submitted that the Tribunal, in the said decision, has held that reopening on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing is not permissible. Referring to the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Key Components (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, vide ITA No.366/Del/2016, he submitted that factual error in reasons or conclusions based on information of Investigation Wing are not reasons.

12.1 The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the money in question cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee u/s 5(2) r.w.s. 90 of the IT Act. He submitted that there is no finding as to how the AO has jurisdiction to assessee such receipts in the light of the DTAA with UAE where every income is taxable in country of residence only. Referring to the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Russian Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 37 taxmann.com 400, he submitted that the Tribunal, in the said decision, has held that if the identity of the non-resident remitter is established and money has come in through proper banking channels, it cannot be treated as deemed income of the assessee u/s 68 or 69 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that both legally and factually the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is not justified. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also relied upon the following decisions:- i) Sumanabandhyopadhyay & Anr. Vs. DDIT (IT), TS 281 HC 2017; ii) Decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Prahlad Vijendra Rao; iii) CIT vs. AP Kalyanakrishnan, 195 ITR 534 (Madras). iv) CIT vs. Jet Airways, 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) v) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136

17.1 Similarly, the PCIT, while giving his approval has given his approval by observing as under:-

by the assessee read as under:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the learned Assessing Officer in re-opening the Appellant’s assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) here more particularly failed to note that- (a) the assessment of the Appellant had been re-opened on basis of information from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department - which information was not definite to support the re-opening and (b) the learned Assessing Officer had re-opened the assessment only on basis of such information and not on basis of his own belief that the income of the Appellant had escaped assessment. According to the Appellant, the re-assessment is illegal and deserves to be quashed in appeal.

2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 1,74,06,350/- made by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of remittances received by the Appellant in his bank account from one, African Commodities DMCC, Dubai.

In sustaining this addition, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has disregarded the Appellant’s explanations that the remittances were not his income as the same were made by African Commodities DMCC, Dubai to reimburse him business expenditures incurred on its behalf. The addition of Rs. 1,74,06,350/- u/s 69A sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous and deserves to be deleted in appeal.

3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in sustaining the action of the learned Assessing Officer in taxing the Appellant on the whole of remittances amount of Rs. 1,74,06,350/- u/s 69A without allowing deduction for any expenditure incurred by the Appellant from the remittances. This action of the lower authorities may be corrected in appeal by allowing appropriate deduction for the expenditure.

4. Both the lower authorities erred in passing their respective orders without granting the Appellant an adequate opportunity of being heard. The orders passed by them are in contravention of the principles of natural justice and bad in law.

5. The Appellant reserves the right to add, alter or delete any of the above grounds with permission of the Hon’ble Tribunal.”

An information has been received from ITO (Inv.) Unit-6 that Sh. Alok Gupta maintained savings account bearing No. 0005-119394100 with IndusInd Bank Ltd. where sh. Alok Gupta has received regular inward remittance from UAE amounting to Rs. 1.31 crore. Sh. Alok Gupta is based in Nigeria which raises suspicion on the source of the fund. Subsequently, out of total receipts of Rs. 1.31 crore in the bank account, there were, high value cash withdrawals amounting to Rs. 1.22 crore. The cash withdrawals were always kept below Rs. 10 lakh to avoid reporting. During investigation by the Unit, copy of the above bank account was obtained. When enquired with Sh. Alok Gupta in this regard, he has submitted that he is a non- resident Indian from birth holding Indian Passport and normally resides in Nigeria and United Arab Emirates. sh Alok Gupta has further submitted, that, the remittance of Rs. 1.31 crore were received from African Commodities DMCC towards expenses incurred, for travel related expenses of various employees recruited from India who are working outside India in his group companies. Sh Alok Gupta further submitted that Sh O.P. Mundra was authorized to operate the bank account in his absence in India and withdrawals were made for meeting travel related expenditure of employees recruited from India. However, it is important to mention that Sh. Alok Gupta has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim with regard to the source of the fund. Under these circumstances, the source of the fund received in his above- mentioned bank account remains unexplained for which appropriate remedial action is called for under the IT Act, 1961 to tax the unexplained money/ undisclosed income in relevant A.Ys. He has also not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim with regard to the utilization of the fund. Financial year-wise break-up of credits and withdrawals made during F.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the above bank account are tabulated below:- F.Y. Total credits/deposits Total withdrawals 2009-10 Rs. 59, 45, 779/- Rs. 59,25,000/- 2010-11 Rs. 2,33,68,263/- Rs. 2,25,98,377/- Total : Rs. 2,93,14,042/- Rs 2,85,23,377/- On perusal of bank statement of the assessee, it is found that during the financial year 2010-11, the assessee has withdrawn Rs.2,25,98,377/- in his bank account. The assessee has neither filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 nor offered, any income for taxation, therefore, I have reason to believe that income amounting Rs.2,25,98,377/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in A. Y. 2010-11. This is a fit case for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 needs to be issued to the assessee.

An information has been received from ITO (Inv.) Unit-6 that Sh. Alok Gupta maintained savings account bearing No. 0005-119394100 with IndusInd Bank Ltd. where sh. Alok Gupta has received regular inward remittance from UAE amounting to Rs. 1.31 crore. Sh. Alok Gupta is based in Nigeria which raises suspicion on the source of the fund. Subsequently, out of total receipts of Rs. 1.31 crore in the bank account, there were, high value cash withdrawals amounting to Rs. 1.22 crore. The cash withdrawals were always kept below Rs. 10 lakh to avoid reporting. During investigation by the Unit, copy of the above bank account was obtained. When enquired with Sh. Alok Gupta in this regard, he has submitted that he is a non- resident Indian from birth holding Indian Passport and normally resides in Nigeria and United Arab Emirates. sh Alok Gupta has further submitted, that, the remittance of Rs. 1.31 crore were received from African Commodities DMCC towards expenses incurred, for travel related expenses of various employees recruited from India who are working outside India in his group companies. Sh Alok Gupta further submitted that Sh O.P. Mundra was authorized to operate the bank account in his absence in India and withdrawals were made for meeting travel related expenditure of employees recruited from India. However, it is important to mention that Sh. Alok Gupta has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim with regard to the source of the fund. Under these circumstances, the source of the fund received in his above- mentioned bank account remains unexplained for which appropriate remedial action is called for under the IT Act, 1961 to tax the unexplained money/ undisclosed income in relevant A.Ys. He has also not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim with regard to the utilization of the fund. Financial year-wise break-up of credits and withdrawals made during F.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the above bank account are tabulated below:- F.Y. Total credits/deposits Total withdrawals 2009-10 Rs. 59, 45, 779/- Rs. 59,25,000/- 2010-11 Rs. 2,33,68,263/- Rs. 2,25,98,377/- Total : Rs. 2,93,14,042/- Rs 2,85,23,377/- On perusal of bank statement of the assessee, it is found that during the financial year 2010-11, the assessee has deposited Rs.2,33,68,263/- in his bank account. The assessee has neither filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 nor offered, any income for taxation. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income amounting Rs.2,33,68,263/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in A. Y. 2011-12. This is a fit case for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 needs to be issued to the assessee.