Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is in appeal against an order for assessment year 2012-13. The AO initiated reassessment based on information about a bank deposit, but the assessee claims they did not file a return and the bank statement shows a lower deposit than alleged by the AO.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was ex-parte and the bank statement needed cross-verification by the AO. Both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment was valid based on the information available with the AO and whether the CIT(A) properly considered the assessee's submissions.
Sections Cited
148, 143(2), 142(1), 144, 271(1)(c), 234A, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 24.07.2024 passed for assessment year 2012-13.
The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal, out of which Ground No. 8 is a general ground which does not call A.Y.2012-13 2 for recording of any finding. In Ground No. 6, assessee has pleaded grievance against initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is a pre-mature ground and assessee will have a fresh opportunity if this penalty is being imposed upon the assessee. Therefore, at this stage, it is pre-mature in nature which does not require recording of any specific finding.
3. In Ground No.7, assessee has challenged charging of interest under Section 234A and 234B. It is consequential in nature.
4. In Ground Nos. 1 to 5, the grievance of the assessee revolves around two fold, namely ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment by dismissing the appeal ex-parte for want of prosecution and upholding the addition of Rs.57,34,300/-.
The brief facts of the case as emerges out from the assessment order are that assessee did not file his return of income for assessment year 2012-13. The ld. AO received an information from Annual Information Wing/CIB exhibiting that assessee has made deposits of Rs.57,34,300/- in his SB A.Y.2012-13 3 Account No. 878939202 maintained with Indian Bank, Kaithal. Since assessee did not respond to the notice served upon him under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, therefore, AO did not issue notice under Section 143(2) and passed an ex-parte assessment order after issuing notice under Section 142(1) and 144 of the Income Tax Act. The ld.
AO has determined the taxable income at Rs.57,34,300/-.
Dissatisfied with the above, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but it appears that in response to the notice of hearing, assessee alleged to have filed written submissions but those submissions are not considered by ld. CIT(A). The appeal has been dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) without discussing the issues on merit.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee while impugning the orders of Revenue Authority submitted that assessee has infact filed his regular return of income and acknowledgement of such return is available on page No. 20 of the Paper Book. He further submitted that there was no concrete information with the AO exhibiting the escapement of income and there was no live nexus between the alleged A.Y.2012-13 4 information possessed by the AO vis-à-vis formation of belief that income has escaped assessment. He drew our attention towards page 32 to 37 of the Paper Book wherein Bank Statement of the alleged Saving Bank Account has been placed on the record. On the strength of this bank statement, it has been contended that what to talk of Rs.57,34,300/-, the assessee has not deposited more than Rs.34 lacs in this bank account during the year. Therefore, the re-opening at the end of the ld. AO was not in consonance with the facts available on the record. He also submitted that no notice was served upon the assessee. The appellant only came to know when his bank account was attached. Similarly, he submitted that in response to the notice of CIT(A), assessee has filed written submissions, which has not been properly considered by the CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal.
The ld. DR, on the other hand relied upon the orders of Revenue Authorities.
With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. Since the documents placed
ITA No.991/CHD/2024 A.Y.2012-13 5 before us have not been gone into by the AO, the assessment order is an ex-parte order, the bank statement placed before us deserves to be cross verified by the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate that both the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the issue deserves to be re-examined afresh at the level of AO. It is pertinent to note that according to the AO, sum of Rs.57,34,300/- was deposited in the bank account but, according to the assessee, he has not deposited more than Rs.34 lacs in this bank account. In this factual background, it is for the AO to demonstrate as to how he construed a deposit of Rs.57,34,300/-. It is not ascertainable whether ld. AO has called details from the bank or not and whether he is competent to reopen the assessment on this half baked information possessed by him. Before issuing notice to the assessee, it was incumbent upon the AO to call for the bank statement and work out the deposits made by the assessee in his alleged Saving Bank Account. He ought to have re-verify this deposit against the income declared by the assessee whose acknowledgement is placed on page No. 20 of the Paper Book. Therefore, ld. AO is directed to consider the A.Y.2012-13 6 alleged objections of the assessee against re-opening of the assessment and if he was satisfied thatre-opening can be dropped, same be done. But, if he was of the view that it is a fit case to reopen the assessment, then re-adjudicate the issues on merit after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In view of the above, the assessment order as well as order of ld. CIT(A) are set aside. Issues are relegated to the file of AO.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 14.05.2025.