TEJINDER KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-45(1), NEW DELHI

The facts in brief are that the Assessing Officer noted that in this case, no return of income was filed for the year under consideration and as per the CBDTs Pilot Project (non filers of Income Tax Return), certain transactions have been captured by Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) wherein it was noticed that assessee during the financial year 2010-11 had deposited sum of Rs. 26,13,240/- in cash. The reasons have been incorporated in the assessment order at pages 1 to 3, wherein the entire basis for recording the reasons and entertaining reason to believe is based on the information generated through ITD system that amount of Rs.26,13,240/- is income of the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed in his assessment order that despite issuance of various notices to the assessee, the assessee has not responded. Accordingly, he passed the assessment u/144/147 and has made addition for sums aggregating to Rs. 10,56,670/- which is mainly on account of gross profit @ 25% on total credit appearing in the bank account of Rs.26,90,040/- and cash deposits of Rs. 3,84,164/-.

Before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has filed various additional evidences and also pointed out that the AIR information itself was based on wrong presumption of fact as it did not pertained to assessee. However, the Ld. CIT (A) has refused to admit the additional evidence under Rule 46A and has confirmed the said addition.

Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that from a bare perusal of the ITS which is basis for drawing adverse inference against the assessee and taking action u/s 147, it can be seen that it does not pertain to the assessee, because information pertains to Amarpreet Kaur with different address and completely unrelated to the assessee. Therefore, entire premise on which reasons were recorded is based on incorrect assumption of facts, therefore, such reason to believe and reason recorded is bad in law and does give him jurisdiction.

On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that though different name has been mentioned in ITS, but fact of the matter is that certain cash was deposited in the account of the assessee and assessee had not filed her return of income, and therefore, Assessing Officer has rightly assumed the jurisdiction.

After considering the material placed on record specifically the AIR information based on Individual Transaction Statement which is basis for recording the reasons and assuming jurisdiction u/s.147, it is seen that this information pertains to Amarpreet Kaur, resident of WZ- 254GA, G-Block Hari Nagar, New Delhi who has maintained her account in SBI Tilak Nagar. Whereas, the name of the assessee is, Smt. Tajinder Kaur, F-12, 2nd Floor, Mukhram Garden, New Delhi, which is also mentioned in the assessment order and notices. In support, assessee has also filed form 26AS. For sake of proper appreciation, the typed version of ITS which was the basis for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 is as under:-

Filer TAN Filer Name; STATE BANK OF INDIA Filer Address: 3 STATE BANK BHAVAN MUMS48590D MADAM CAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA Sr. Name and Transaction Transaction Joint Actual RRR Number RRR Date Filer Branch No. Address Amount Date Coun Air Name and t Line address No. AMANPREET 1 26,13,240 31-MAR-11 1 137105 50250500001413 18-SEP-11 STATE BANK KAUR OF INDIA, ACCT. No. TILAK 30984785712 NAGAR (NEW WZ-254A G DELHI) BLOCK HARI (01551) NAGAR NEW 5-B/4, MAIN DELHI NAJAFGARH ROAD, TILAK NAGAR NEW DELHI WEST DELHI 110018

From the aforesaid information it can be clearly seen that it is in respect of deposit of Rs.10 lac in Smt. Amarpreet Kaur and such FIR information does not mention or pertain to the assessee. Thus, the reasons recorded are based on factually incorrect information which admittedly does not belong to the assessee. The action of the Assessing Officer for reopening the case u/s 147 is mechanical and without any application of mind, and therefore, the entire reasons recorded on such erroneous presumption of information or material cannot clothe Assessing Officer with jurisdiction u/s.147 and same is therefore bad in law and is quashed.