SHRI GOPAL YADEV SELVA KUMAR,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-2, VELLORE

आदेश / O R D E R

PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, dated 18.09.2017

and pertains to AY 2011-12.

partner of M/s.Gokulam Auto Finance & Consultancy, Arcot had filed his

return of income for the AY 2011-12 on 17.07.2011 declaring total income

of Rs.2,49,000/- and said return was processed u/s.143(1) of Income Tax

Act, 1961 (in short “the Act"). The case has been, subsequently, reopened

u/s.147 of the Act for the reasons recorded, as per which, income

ITA No.111/Chny/2018 :: 2 ::

chargeable to tax escaped assessment on account of cash deposits into

back account and hence, notice u/s.148 dated 21.10.2014 was issued. In

response, the assessee’s representative filed a letter dated 17.11.2014 and

requested to consider the return already filed on 17.07.2011 may be

treated as return filed in response to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act.

Further, the assessee had requested to furnish the reasons recorded for

reopening of assessment. The AO vide letter dated 18.11.2014

communicated the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment.

Thereafter, the AO had issued notices u/ss.143(2) & 142(1) of the Act on

various occasions and called upon the assessee to file necessary details to

justify the cash deposits into bank accounts. The assessee’s representative

vide letter dated 27.06.2015 filed assessee’s objections for re-assessment

proceedings. Thereafter, the AO issued one more letter on 13.07.2015 and

called upon the assessee to furnish various details. In response, the

assessee has filed various details and justified cash deposits into bank

account and also argued that reopening of assessment is merely on change

of opinion, because in the original assessment proceedings, the AO had

examined cash deposits found in bank account and accepted the

explanation furnished by the assessee. The AO, however, was not

convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to

him, the assessee is not able to justify the cash deposits found in the

savings bank account and thus, rejected arguments of the assessee and

ITA No.111/Chny/2018 :: 3 ::

made the additions of Rs.1,51,79,950/- u/s.69 of the Act as unexplained

investment.

Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the reopening of

assessment on multiple grounds including non-disposal of objections filed

by the assessee in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of M/s.GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO reported in (2003) 259 ITR

The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee has

rejected the legal ground taken by the assessee challenging reopening of

assessment by observing that the AO has formed reasonable belief of

escapement of income which is supported by tangible material in the form

of bank account maintained by the assessee with bank which is found with

huge cash deposits and thus, the arguments of the assessee that the AO

has reopened the assessment based on audit objection is incorrect.

Accordingly, rejected the legal ground taken by the assessee. As regards,

additions made towards cash deposits in savings bank account u/s.69 of

the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) has rejected the ground taken by the assessee on

the ground that the assessee has not raised any ground challenging

additions made by the AO.

reopening of assessment on multiple grounds and also additions made

towards cash deposits into savings bank account u/s.69 of the Act. The

ITA No.111/Chny/2018 :: 4 ::

ITAT in ITA No.111/Chny/2018 vide order dated 22.06.2018 has not

adjudicated legal ground taken by the assessee challenging reopening of

assessment. However, set aside the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to

decide the issue on merits in respect of additions made towards cash

deposits u/s.69 of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of

the Hon’ble ITAT, preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras and challenged the findings of the ITAT in not adjudicating legal

ground taken for challenging reopening of assessment. The Hon’ble High

Court of Madras in TCA No.821 of 2018 dated 17.07.2020 has restored the

appeal to the file of the Tribunal with a direction to adjudicate legal ground

taken by the assessee challenging reopening of assessment on multiple

grounds including non-disposal of objections filed by the assessee in light

of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.GKN

Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (supra). Therefore, the present appeal is

listed to decide the legal issue involved in the appeal challenging the validity

of reopening of assessment and thus, it is necessary to reproduce the

grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of reopening of

assessment. The relevant grounds filed by the assessee are as under:

ITA No.111/Chny/2018

:: 5 ::

"One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief."

Tangible material would mean factual material and not inference/opinion on material already in existence and considered during the assessment proceedings (Aroni Commericials Limited V Income Tax-2 (2014) SCC Online Bom 221).

(ii) In the instant case. The aggregate cash deposits (which belong to a firm wherein the appellant and his wife are the partners) made on various dates in the ICICI Bank account of the appellant amounting to Rs.1,49,85,094/- and withdrawals there from made on various dates has been considered in the original assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 14.03.2013 and the finding of the learned A.O is as under:

"2.1 During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings it is stated by the assesee that he is receiving rental income and share income from M/s Shri Gokulam Auto Finance and constancy PAN No ABLPS2424L. His wife S.Anandhi Parimala was another partner. Since there was no separate banking transactions maintained by the firm, the money belonging to the firm has been deposited and withdrawn in assesee's individual bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Arcot. Hence these transactions were amounted the total transaction to more than Rs.10,00,000/-. These were examined with the firm’s books of accounts along with the ICICI Bank account transaction."

After a careful perusal, the ITO passed the order without any addition on this ground.

However, the case has been reopened on the ground for the reason given below as per the ITO's letter dated 18.11.2014 as under:

"Since the assesee has no separate business activity and the capital of the firm as well as the amount available for lending was Rs.11,13,386/- only, the entire transaction made to the tune of Rs.1,49,85,094/- needs to be analyzed with the view to taxability of the same u/s 69."

(iii) On comparison of the observations made by the learned ITO in original assessment and in the ITO's letter dated 18.11.2014 explaining the reason for reassessment, there is certainly no fresh tangible evidence but there is merely a change of opinion on the same set of circumstance. Therefore, the reassessment is based on a mere change of opinion when there is no fresh material surfacing after the original assessment u/s 143(3) to the above issue.

(iv) The next reason for the selection of case for reassessment has been the advance interest account of Rs.2,05,720/- appearing in the liability side of the balance sheet of the firm M/s Gokulam Auto Finance and Consultancy which is an entity assessed separately and not relevant to the assessment of the appellant. Even this said piece of evidence viz. balance sheet of the firm was also one which was truly and fully provided material by the appellant and carefully considered by the ITO at the time of original assessment. Therefore, no fresh tangible material has been relied on for

ITA No.111/Chny/2018

:: 6 ::

reassessment. Again, the reassessment is based on change of opinion and therefore ought to be set aside.

(v) Another ground for reopening of assessment is receipt of Rs.16,137/- as interest from ICICI Bankescaped assessment in the hands of the assesse. Again, it is submitted that the bank account has been submitted to the ITO at the time of original assessment and the transactions were examined by the ITO at the time of original assessment and bank account statement is not fresh piece of evidence to be considered in reassessment. It was also once again explained at the time of reassessment that the said interest has been booked in the firm's assessment since the funds were belonging to the firm and interest earned also belongs to the firm. Therefore, all the above reasons said to be have been reasoned for reassessment is not sustainable.

(2) The objection of the appellant has not been disposed off by the ITO and the impugned reassessment was initiated without any regard to the procedure established by law.

(i) The ITO has initiated impugned reassessment proceedings even without disposing the objections raised by the appellant in his letter dt.27/06/2015 highlighting the fact that the all the material based on which reassessment was initiated were already been considered by the AO at the time of original assessment u/s 143(3) as stated above and hence the reassessment is bad in law. Therefore, the reassessment is arbitrary and much against the guide lines/findings give by the Apex Court in the case of G K N Drive Shafts India Ltd. Vs. ITO (2013) 259 ITR 19.

(ii) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bayer Material Science P Ltd. Vs. DCIT,(2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom) (HC) held that non- disposal of objections and providing the assessee with the recorded reason towards end of the limitation period and passing a reassessment order without dealing with results is gross harassment to the assessee which the PR.CIT should take note and take remedial action. In Asian Paints Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) the Court has clearly laid down that when an assessment is sought to be reopened under Section 148 of the Act and the objections of the assessee have been over ruled by the Assessing Officer, then in such a case the Assessing Officer will not proceed further in the matter for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order rejecting the objections of the assessee. In view of the fact that Assessing Officer cannot proceed further in a matter for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order rejecting the objections, no valid impugned reassessment can be initiated without disposing the objections raised by the assessee. Such an action is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

(3) The impugned Reassessment is only based on audit objections of the department and hence ill-founded and liable to be quashed.

(i) The ITO has informed in his letter dated 18/11/2014 the reasons for impugned reassessment which are purportedly based on the audit objections raised by the audit party of the Department and not because of any fresh material found after completion of assessment u/s 143(3). The assessee has submitted his objections through a letter dated 27/06/15 stating that the reasons for impugned reassessment were facts and materials which were already considered by the AO while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) and there is fresh evidence/material found by ITO to come to a conclusion that there is income escaped from assessment. The impugned reassessment is bad in law

ITA No.111/Chny/2018 :: 7 ::

since the ITO at the time of regular assessment has applied his mind by making a deep scrutiny of cash deposits and passed a speaking order that the sources for the cash deposits. Mere audit objection could not form basis to reopen completed assessment. (Smt. Shalu Sachdeva Vs. ACIT (2015) Taxmann.com and CIT Vs. Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation (2000) 242 ITR 119)

(4) Reassessment is bad in law while rectification proceeding u/s 154 is under pending:

(i) The issue of notice u/s 147 and reassessment is not justified when, proceeding u/s 154 is pending on the parallel issue as upheld in the case of Mahinder Freight Carriers Vs. Dy.CIT (2011) 56 DTK 247 (Mum) (Trib). A similar decision was upheld in Delhi Bench in the case of H.M.Overseas P Ltd. Vs ACIT 23 DTR 29: (2009) 23 DTR Del Trib. 29 wherein it was held that during the dependency of rectification proceedings u/s 154 it was open to the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings on the same issue.

(ii) In the instant case, the AO has issued a notice u/s 154 dated 10.09.2014 seeking rectification of mistake to bring to tax "advance interest" received of Rs.2,05,720/- appearing in the liability side of the Balance Sheet of the firm wherein the appellant is a partner and left the proceeding in abeyance and issued notice for reassessment on 21.10.2014 for the same reason. Therefore, the notice for reassessment u/s 147 is void ab initio.

submitted that the AO has reopened assessment on change of opinion

without any tangible materials subsequent to completion of original

assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, which is evident from the fact that the

AO while recording reasons has referred to records which includes the

assessment records, as per which, cash deposits in ICICI Bank account was

also examined by the AO during the original assessment proceedings

u/s.143(3) on 14.03.2013 and thus, in the absence of any fresh tangible

materials reopening of assessment is nothing but change of opinion, which

is not permissible under the law. In this regard, relied on the decision of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.,

reported in (2010) 2 SCC 723.

ITA No.111/Chny/2018 :: 8 ::

arguments taken by the assessee challenging reopening of assessment on

change of opinion, because, as per the reasons recorded for reopening of

assessment, there is a tangible material, which is suggest escapement of

income within the meaning of Sec.147 of the Act. Further, fresh tangible

material may come within or outside the file of the AO, but if such material

suggests escapement of income then, it cannot be said that there is no

fresh tangible material to form basis of escapement of income. Therefore,

he submitted that reopening of assessment in the given facts and

circumstances of the case is valid and thus, there is no merit in the

arguments of the assessee.

record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We have also

carefully considered the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment and

find that while recording the reasons for reopening of assessment, the AO

referred to return of income filed by the assessee and bank statement

available with assessment folder to form a reasonable basis of escapement

of income within the meaning of Sec.147 of the Act. But said records or

evidences were already with the AO while framing the assessment

u/s.143(3) of the Act, which is evident from the fact that the AO had

considered the savings bank account maintained by the assessee with ICICI

Bank, Arcot and observed that cash deposits with ICICI bank has been

examined with the firms of books of accounts. Therefore, from the above

ITA No.111/Chny/2018 :: 9 ::

what is clear is that the AO has formed reasonable belief of escapement of

income on the basis of materials already in the possession of the

Department while framing the original assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act,

but not from any fresh tangible evidence which come to the knowledge of

the AO subsequent to original assessment and thus, we are of the

considered view that the reasons recorded by the AO to form reasonable

belief of escapement of income is nothing but mere ‘change of opinion’,

which is not permissible under the law. The said principle is fortified by the

judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator

of India Ltd. (supra), wherein, it has been categorically observed that the

AO has power to reopen the assessment provided there is tangible material

to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income from the

assessment. Further, reasons must have a live link with the formation of

the belief. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s.Aroni

Commercials Ltd. v. Income Tax-2 reported in (2014) SCC Online Bombay

221, had considered the identical issue and held that the tangible material

would mean factual material and not inference/opinion on material already

in existence and considered during the course of assessment proceedings.

From the ratio laid down by the above two judgments, what is clear is that

there should be fresh tangible material subsequent to the date of

assessment proceedings for the AO to form a reasonable belief of

escapement of income. In case, the AO formed a reasonable belief of

escapement of income on the basis of material already in the possession of

ITA No.111/Chny/2018 :: 10 ::

the Department and considered during the course of assessment

proceedings, then it can be said that the reasons recorded for reopening of

assessment is on the basis of change of opinion. In this case, admittedly,

there is no fresh tangible material in the possession of the AO subsequent

to original assessment proceedings. But, what was considered by the AO

to form reasonable belief of escapement of income is Income Tax Return

filed by the assessee for the relevant AY and copy of bank statement which

was already filed during original assessment proceedings and considered

by the AO while framing assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. Therefore, we

are of the considered opinion that reopening of assessment on the basis of

material already in existence and considered by the AO during the course

of assessment proceedings is nothing but mere change of opinion, which is

not permissible under the law. Hence, we quashed re-assessment notice

issued u/s.148 of the Act and consequent re-assessment order passed

u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act.

Order pronounced on the 12th day of January, 2022, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (वी. दुगा� राव) (जी. मंजूनाथा) (G. MANJUNATHA) (V. DURGA RAO) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 12th January, 2022. TLN, Sr.PS आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to:

ITA No.111/Chny/2018 :: 11 :: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 4. आयकर आयु�/CIT 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 3. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड� फाईल/GF