Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the orders of CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. The case was reopened under Section 148, and additions were made for unexplained cash deposits, commission/brokerage, and interest income. The CIT(A) upheld these additions. The assessee also challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c).
Held
The tribunal held that the additional ground regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice was dismissed. However, regarding the merits, the tribunal found that the additional evidence filed by the assessee needed verification. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was valid, and whether the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were justified, considering the additional evidence presented.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 133(6), 69A, 250, 271(1)(c), 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These two appeals are filed by the Assessee against two separate orders, both dated 14.10.2024, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“The Grounds of Appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another:
1. The Leamed AO erred in issuing notice uls.148 without forming reasons to believe as contemplated uls.147, moreover sanction u/s.151 was granted by PCIT-1 Ahmedabad in mechanical manner.
2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in passing order u/s.250 of the Act, upholding addition u/s.69A to the extent of INR 62,00,000/- on account of cash & 2029/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years: 2012-13 (for both) Jasbir Ranjitsingh Walia vs. ITO Page 2 of 5 deposits and time deposits, which is completely erroneous, moreover bank statement submitted by appellant was absolutely ignored.
3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in passing order u/s. 250 of the Act, upholding addition to the extent of INR 85,101/- on account of commission and brokerage, without appreciating the fact that the appellant had no such income during said period.
4. The Leamed CIT(A) erred in passing order u/s. 250 of the Act, upholding addition to the extent of INR 62,693/- on account of interest income, without appreciating the actual interest carried and which is well below the basic exemption limit.
5. The Leamed CIT(A) has erred in passing order u/s.250 of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above revised grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” for Assessment Year 2012-13 ”The Grounds of Appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another:
1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in issuing penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein no concealment of income has been made by the appellant in any manner.
2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in issuing penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. on the addition levied u/s.69A of INR 62,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits, as addition itself is incorrect and hence the penalty imposed was bad in law.
The Learned CIT(A) has erred in issuing penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, on addition of INR 85,101/- on account of brokerage and commission, as addition itself is incorrect and hence the penalty imposed was bad in law.
4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in issuing penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, on basis of making addition of INR 62,693/- on account of interest income, as addition itself is incorrect and hence the penalty imposed was bad in law.
The Appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above revised grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
& 2029/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years: 2012-13 (for both) Jasbir Ranjitsingh Walia vs. ITO Page 3 of 5 3. The assessee has filed return of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012- 13 and as per information, the case was reopened for scrutiny after taking necessary approval of the appropriate authorities. The copy of reasons were placed on record and notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 23.03.2019 and was duly served upon the assessee. In response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file return of income. Thereafter, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued but no response received. During the assessment proceedings, notice under Section 133(6) of the Act was issued to HDFC Bank Limited on 22.11.2019 and information was called relating to the transaction done by the assessee as well as KYC details alongwith account opening form and all the other enclosures. The Bank provided the details of transactions made by the assessee for the period of 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2015. Show cause notice dated 22.11.2019 was issued to the assessee and the same was not responded. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.62,00,000/- under unexplained cash under Section 69A of the Act as well as made addition of Rs.1,47,794/- towards commission/brokerage received by the assessee.
Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. AR has taken additional ground which is legal ground as follows :-
The Learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice under Section 148 without forming reasons to believe as contemplated under Section 147; moreover, sanction under Section 151 was granted by the PCIT-1, Ahmedabad in a mechanical manner.
5.1 The said additional ground is a component of main ground of the assessee before us in ground no.1 of Form no.36. The Ld. AR submitted that without forming any reason to believe, the Assessing Officer has issued Section 148 notice which is not justified. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of Sukhvir Singh vs. ITO (2024) 165 taxmann.com 197 (Amritsar Tribunal). As regards the merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that at this juncture, HDFC Bank interest calculation and the Bank Statement attached as additional evidence before the Tribunal.
& 2029/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years: 2012-13 (for both) Jasbir Ranjitsingh Walia vs. ITO Page 4 of 5 6. The Ld. DR submitted that in respect of additional ground the assessee has not made any compliance before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, this ground should not be entertained as the reasons were rightly notified and there was no doubt about the information received by the Department which can be seen at page no.1 & 2 of the Paper Book clearly setting out that the reasons as copies from ITBA are attached to MS Word file. Therefore, the plea of the assessee is that the attachment of reasons is not there on the website is not correct. Thus, the ld. DR submits that the additional ground should not be entertained. As relates to merit, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee is filing additional evidence before the Tribunal which needs verification and the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication and verification.
We have heard both the parties and perused all the reverent material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the RTI application has clearly set out that the reasons as copied from ITBA are attached in MS Word file which though not annexed by the assessee to the Paper Book, it appears that there are reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer as CIB information was also attached to the said form. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that without forming the reasons to believe the assessee was issued Section 148 notice which is not a correct proposition. Thus, the additional ground taken by the assessee is dismissed.
As regards meris of the case, the assessee at this juncture is filing bank statement, Form 26AS and interest calculation details which needs verification and cannot be simpliciter taken as it is. Therefore, we are remanding back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication of the additional evidences filed by the assessee before us and decide the case as per income Tax Act. The assessee be given opportunity of hearing as per the principles of natural justice. Thus, is partly allowed for statistical purpose. the same is related to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is consequential and hence the same is also remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication. Thus, is also partly allowed for statistical purpose.
& 2029/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years: 2012-13 (for both) Jasbir Ranjitsingh Walia vs. ITO Page 5 of 5
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 20th February, 2025.