Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a senior citizen retired from the Indian Army, appealed against an order related to Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 40,40,000/- alleging a cash deposit in a specific bank account, which the assessee denied. The assessee claimed to not have the mentioned bank account.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition without any basis and without proper application of mind. The reasons for reopening the assessment were found to be vague and lacked specific details regarding the bank account and transaction.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 and the subsequent addition made under Section 69A are based on valid reasons and sufficient evidence, or if they are arbitrary and without basis.
Sections Cited
147, 69A, 139, 148, 142(1), 2(40)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2013-14dated 05.02.2024, emanating from order u/s.147of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 17.09.2021. [A] Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.AR for the assessee appeared for the hearing Virtually. The ld.AR filed a paper book containing 39 pages. Ld.AR submitted that Assessee Retired from Indian Army. Assessee is a Senior Citizen. Assessee’s source of income is Pension and Interest Income.
2.1 The ld.AR invited our attention to the Assessment Order, wherein the Assessing Officer has alleged that cash of Rs.40,40,000/- in Savings Bank Account No.2020000 was deposited. Ld.AR submitted that Assessee do not have any such bank account having account no.2020000. Ld.AR invited our attention to Affidavit of the Assessee, wherein Assessee has submitted Bank Account Numbers of the Assessee. Ld.AR submitted that on perusal of the Affidavit, one can understand that Assessee do not have any Bank Account having number 2020000. Ld.AR submitted that in the Affidavit that Assessee has categorically denied any cash deposit of Rs.40,40,000/-. Ld.AR therefore, submitted that the addition of Rs.40,40,000/- made u/s.69A of the Act, in the Assessment Order is without any basis and needs to be deleted. [A] 2.2 Ld.AR also submitted that the Assessing Officer has reopened assessment based on the reasons which are not supported by any authentic information. Therefore, the reopening is bad in law.
Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue merely relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, the Assessee’s appeal in for A.Y.2013-14 was heard ex-parte by ITAT Pune on 12.08.2024. The ITAT Pune passed order in on 12.08.2024. The Assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application No.25/PUN/2025. The said Miscellaneous Application was heard on 20.06.2025. The ITAT Pune passed an order on 23.06.2025 in MA No.25/PUN/2025 arising out of ITA No.895/PUN/2024. The ITAT re-called the order in ITA No.895/PUN/2024 passed on 12.08.2024. Thus, the recalled matter was heard on 24.07.2025. [A] 4.1 In this case, it is mentioned in the assessment order that Assessee had not filed Return of Income for A.Y.2013-14 u/s.139 of the Act.
4.2 The Notice u/s.148 dated 19.03.2020 was issued for A.Y.2013- 14. The Assessee filed Return of Income for A.Y.2013-14 in response to notice u/s.148 declaring total income of Rs.1,35,040/- which consist of Income from Salary and Income from Other Sources.
During the re-assessment proceedings, Assessee submitted details as called-for including Bank Account Statements. However, the Assessing Officer held that Assessee has not furnished any details regarding transaction of Rs.40,40,000/- made on 31.07.2012 mentioned in the notice. Accordingly, Assessing Officer made addition u/s.69A of Rs.40,40,000/-.
In the para 5.1 of the assessment order, Assessing Officer has referred the so-called transaction of Rs.40,40,000/-. The relevant part of Para 5.1 of the assessment order is scanned and reproduced here as under : [A] 6.1 Thus, the Assessing Officer is referring some Saving Bank Account No.2020000, wherein according to Assessing Officer, Assessee has deposited Cash of Rs.40,40,000/- on 31.07.2012. However, Assessing Officer(AO) has not mentioned any name of the bank. During the re-assessment proceedings, Assessee has categorically denied any such transaction. Subsequently, Assessee has filed an Affidavit also stating that “No such transaction has been entered”. During the re-assessment proceedings, Assessee had filed Copy of Bank Statements for Account No.5782 maintained with Bank of India. Assessee has also filed details of Bank Account maintained by Assessee. In these facts and circumstances, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not referred even the “alleged Name of the Bank”. Therefore, once Assessee has denied that he does not has any Bank Account having account number [A] 202000, the onus shifts on Assessing Officer to prove that the Assessee have alleged Bank Account. However, in this case, without specifying any details, Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.40,40,000/- in case of a Senior Citizen who has retired from Indian Army. Ironically, during the appellate proceedings before the ld.CIT(A), Assessee had filed all the details including the Affidavit. The ld.CIT(A) has not rebutted contentions of the Affidavit. However, ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.40,40,000/-.
We have already mentioned that the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.40,40,000/- without any basis. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.40,40,000/-.
In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has reproduced reasons recorded for reopening. The same are reproduced here as under : “1. “The Assessee has not filed return of income for A.Y.2013-14 2. In respect of the assessee following information is available in the annual information report Deposited Cash of Rs.10,00,000 or more 4040000 in a Saving Bank Account Deposit in Cash aggregating Rs.1272000 2,00,000/- or more, with a banking company The above information has been analyzed.
ITA No.895/PUN/2024 [A]
Ongoing through office records, it has been found that the assessee has NOT filed return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14, therefore, he had not disclosed the income pertaining to above mentioned transaction. 4 in view of the above facts, it can be established that the assessee had transaction in the form of undisclsoed receipts, which had not been disclosed for taxation. 5. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income of the assessee for A.Y 2013-14 has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of Section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The amount of income remained to be brought to tax is exceeding Rs.1,00,000/- for A.Y. 2013-14, I have reason to believe that the income of assessee for the year under consideration has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6 In this case, a return of income was not filed for the year under consideration. Accordingly, in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s. 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above, It is pertinent to mention here that in this case, the assessee has not filed return of income for the year under consideration and no assessment as stipulated u/s. 2(40) of the Act was made. In view of the above, provisions of Section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment." 3. Notices u/s. 142(1) were issued on 30.12.2020 and 07.01.2021 calling for details of cash deposits in the bank account.” 9. On perusal of the said reasons, one can understand that in the reasons Assessing Officer has not referred to any specific Bank Account, has vaguely mentioned cash deposits. Assessing Officer has not even bothered to mention the name of the Bank. This shows that the reasons recorded for reopening are without any application of mind and without any valid basis. Therefore, prima-facie there is [A] no merit in the reasons. Hence, the notice u/s.148 issued based on these reasons is bad in law.
9.1 For all the reasons discussed above, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31 July, 2025.