VINOD MAHESHWARI,MODINAGAR vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1498/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 September 2016AY 2008-096 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the AO failed to apply his mind to the material on record, as evidenced by the recording of two separate, identical reasons. The Tribunal quashed the assessment based on this jurisdictional defect.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on AIR information regarding cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The AO recorded separate reasons for two bank accounts, citing the assessee's failure to respond to a verification letter.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid when the AO failed to apply his mind to the material and recorded identical reasons for separate bank accounts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-3 : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 31.08.2016Pronounced: 09.09.2016

ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 06.01.2015 for the assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds:-

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT (Appeal) erred in not quashing the instant reopening made in violation of jurisdictional conditions stipulated under the Act.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT (Appeal) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.31,94,750/- as alleged unexplained deposits without appreciating the material on records including detailed written submissions filed.

3. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or delete any of the above grounds at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

2.

After hearing the rival contentions, I find that the AO assumed jurisdiction by issuing notice u/s 148 for reopening the assessment. He has recorded two separate reasons for two separate bank accounts as follows:-

“Reasons to issue notice under section 148 12.03.2013 On the basis of AIR information that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.1601750/- in financial year 2007-08 in his Saving Bank Account verification letter F.No.AIR/ITO-(5)GZB/2012-13/dated 31.01.2013 was issued. The furnish his reply within 15 days of the receipt of the letter the assessee has deposited cash worth Rs.160175500/- in his saving bank account and has not responded to the verification letter issued from this office. I have reason to believe that the amount of Rs.1601750/- deposited in cash in the saving Bank account is escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Issue notice under section 148 for the AY 2008-09.

Sd/- (Anil Kumar Sharma) Income tax Officer Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad.”

“Reasons to issue notice under section 148 12.03.2013 On the basis of AIR information that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.1593000/- in financial year 2007-08 in his Saving Bank Account verification letter F.No.AIR/ITO-(5)GZB/2012-13/dated 31.01.2013 was issued. The furnish his reply within 15 days of the receipt of the letter the assessee has deposited cash worth Rs.1593000/- in his saving bank account and has not responded to the verification letter issued from this office. I have reason to believe that the amount of Rs.1593000/- deposited in cash in the saving Bank account is escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Issue notice under section 148 for the AY 2008-09.

Sd/- (Anil Kumar Sharma) Income tax Officer Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad.”

3.

In this case, two separate reasons have been recorded for reopening. This itself shows non-application of mind. Thus, I have to necessarily conclude that the reasons were recorded without application of mind. Therefore, on this ground itself, the reopening of assessment has to be held bad in law by following the judgements of the jurisdictional High Court in the case Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 328 ITR 51 (Del) wherein it was held that notice issued based on a report from Investigation Wing is invalid where the AO does not examine the evidence. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. in vide order dt. 8.10.2015 at para 12 and 13 held as follows.

“12. In the present case, after setting out four entries, stated to have been received by the Assessee on a single date i.e. 10 February 2003, from four entities which were termed as accommodation entries, which information was given to him by the Directorate of Investigation, the AO stated: “I have also perused various materials and report from Investigation Wing and on that basis it is evident that the assessee company has, introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank account by way of above accommodation entries.” The above conclusion is unhelpful in understanding whether the AO applied his mind to the materials that he talks about particularly since he did not describe what those materials were. Once the date on which the so called C.O. No. 276/Del/2010 A.Y. 2000-2001 M/s Bawa Float Glass Limited 3 accommodation entries were provided is known, it would not have been difficult for the AO, if he had in fact undertaken the exercise, to make a reference to the manner in which those very entries were provided in the accounts of the Assessee, which must have been tendered along with the return, which was filed on 14th November 2004 and was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Without forming a prima facie opinion, on the basis of such material, it was not possible for the AO to have simply concluded: “it is evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank by way of accommodation entries”. In the considered view of the Court, in light of the law explained with sufficient clarity by the Supreme Court in the decisions discussed hereinbefore, the 4 basic requirement that the AO must apply his mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present case.

13.

Mr. Sawhney took the Court through the order of the CIT(A) to show how the CIT (A) discussed the materials produced during the hearing of the appeal. The Court would like to observe that this is in the nature of a post mortem exercise after the event of reopening of the assessment has taken place. While the CIT may have proceeded on the basis that the reopening of the assessment was valid, this does not satisfy the requirement of law that prior to the reopening of the assessment, the AO has to, applying his mind to the materials, conclude that he has reason to believe that income of the Assessee has escaped assessment. Unless that basic jurisdictional requirement is satisfied a post mortem exercise of analysing materials produced subsequent to the reopening will not rescue an inherently defective reopening order from invalidity .”

4.

The ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO (2015) 68 SOT 197 URO (Del) to the proposition that mere deposit in bank cannot lead to the conclusion, or even inference, that income has escaped assessment.

5.

Respectfully following the judgements of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and the decision of the Tribunal in the cases cited above as the assessment is bad in law, I quash the same.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The order pronounced in the open court on 09.09.2016.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →