MAAN PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, C.C.2, RANCHI
Facts
A survey operation u/s 133A led to the reopening of the assessee's case, alleging that a cash deposit of Rs.1,36,32,500/- in a specific bank account was undisclosed. The AO estimated 5% of this deposit and added it to the assessee's income, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the bank account was already disclosed in its ITR and audited balance sheet, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid due to a wrong assumption of facts.
Held
The Tribunal found that the bank account in question was clearly reflected in the assessee's return of income and audited accounts. Therefore, the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 based on a wrong assumption of facts was held to be bad in law, and the alleged addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted. All appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.
Key Issues
Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act based on a wrong assumption of facts, particularly concerning an alleged undisclosed bank account that was already disclosed in the return of income, are valid in law.
Sections Cited
133A, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “RANCHI BENCH”, RANCHI
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RANCHI BENCH”, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM (THROUGH HYBRID MODE) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.176-179/RAN/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / AYrs :2013-14, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Maan Promoters Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, 357/A, Professor Colony, Ranchi Karam Toli, Ranchi स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AAGCM 0643 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Khubchand T Pandya Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM : All the above captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders dated 31.03.2025 passed by ld.CIT(A), Patna-3, against which the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common except the figures and assessment years in question, therefore, all the four appeals are heard together and decided by this common order. 3. First we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.176/Ran/2025 for A.Y.2013-2014. 4. Brief facts of the case are that in the case of the assessee there was a survey operation conducted u/s.133A of the Act, which was concluded on
2 ITA No.176-179/Ran/2025 11.09.2020. During the course of survey operation books of accounts marked as MP01 was impounded. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened alleging that cash deposit of Rs.1,36,32,500/- was credited as against credit of Rs.9,46,08,000/- in Bank of India Current Account No.496620110000209 for the year under consideration and the said account was not found to be disclosed in the ITR-4 for the assessment year 2013-2014. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. Subsequent to the notice, notices u/s.143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee and in compliance to the same, the assessee submitted its reply. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. AO viewed that cash deposits of Rs.1,36, 32,500/- was not disclosed by the assessee and accordingly estimated @5% of Rs.1,36,32,500/- which comes to Rs.6,81,625/-, which comes to Rs.6,72,761/- (681625- 8864) and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by upholding the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising multiple grounds, however, at the time of hearing ld. AR contended that the reasons recorded as per assessment order as alleging that the transaction in bank account No.496620110000209 was not disclosed which was not correct and on the basis of wrong assumption of facts it itself is bad in law for initiating the proceedings u/s.148 of the Act. In order to demonstrate the fact ld. AR submitted the copy of the audited balance sheet which clearly shows that
3 ITA No.176-179/Ran/2025 the alleged account was clearly reflected in the return of income. In this connection he submitted a paper book and at page No.3 it clearly reflected that the said bank account was already disclosed in the statement of accounts. The relevant extract of the said account reads as under :-
Similarly, he also brought on record the return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-2014 dated 21.01.2009 which clearly showed in Schedule BA stating the fact that the alleged bank account as stated by the AO for initiation of proceedings u/s.148 of the Act account No.496620110000209 was not disclosed, however, the return clearly reflected the said bank account as submitted by the assessee in its return of income filed for the assessment year 2013-2014. The relevant
4 ITA No.176-179/Ran/2025 extract of the return of income at page 5 of the paper book clearly reflected the bank account substantiating that the account was duly disclosed in the return of income. Therefore, on the basis of wrong assumption of facts proceedings initiated u/s.148 of the Act cannot be sustained as the material was already available during the original assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated u/s.147 of the Act was bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, ld.Sr. DR supported the decisions of the authorities below. 8. We after examining the facts of the case along with the supported documents filed by the assessee before us, find that the alleged bank account which alleged by the Assessing Officer is not disclosed by the assessee, is in fact clearly reflected in the return of income and the audited accounts furnished by the assessee before us, we noticed that the alleged bank account which is clearly reflected in its return of income as well as the statement of income furnished by the assessee and in order to substantiate the claim of the assessee, the assessee produced the same before us in page No.3 & 5 of the paper book along with relevant extract to prove the fact that the accounts were truly disclosed in its return of income. Therefore, on the basis of wrong assumption of facts, proceedings u/s.147 of the Act cannot be initiated. Since the very basis for initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act itself is on wrong assumption of facts, which clearly bad in law, therefore, the alleged addition made by the AO cannot be sustained. We
5 ITA No.176-179/Ran/2025 accordingly direct the AO to delete the alleged addition made as in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the instant appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. The other appeals being ITA Nos.177 to 179/Ran/2025 are identical to the facts and issue involved in ITA No.176/Ran/2025, our finding will apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals also. Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed. 10. In the above terms, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09/10/2025.
(RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (SONJOY SARMA) लेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यायिक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER रधाँची Ranchi; दिनांक Dated 09/10/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनिलिपि अग्रेपर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- . 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकि आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. निभागीय प्रनतनिनर्, आयकि अपीलीय अनर्किण, रधाँची / DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अिीिीय अधर्करण, रधाँची / ITAT, Ranchi
