Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 challenging orders confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of cash deposits. For AY 2011-12, the AO made an addition of Rs. 12.06 Lacs, and for AY 2012-13, the addition was Rs. 11.21 Lacs. The assessee contended that the reopening was based on a wrong premise and that there were no such cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal noted that for AY 2011-12, the reopening was based on cash deposits, and the assessee was a non-filer. The AO and CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee's argument regarding the wrong premise of reopening was not accepted at this stage as the assessee remained non-compliant before lower authorities. For AY 2012-13, the facts and issues were similar.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 and consequent additions were justified? Whether the assessee's non-compliance before lower authorities bars them from raising the issue of wrong premise at this stage?
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AGRA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Sh. Bhagwat Prasad Sharma बनाम/ Income-tax Officer, 185, Gayitri Vihar, Gwalior. Ward 3(1), Gwalior. Vs. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AHIPS-2199-D (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 & 2012-13 arise out of separate orders of first appellate authority. First, we take up appeal for AY 2011-12 which arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] on 23-09-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 14-12-2018. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of cash deposit for Rs.12.06 Lacs for want of any satisfactory explanation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR assailed reopening on the ground that the case was reopened on wrong premise and therefore, the assessment is bad-in-law. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The registry has noted delay of 20 days in the appeals which stand condoned.
Upon perusal of reasons recorded, it could be seen that the case has been reopened on the ground that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.11.21 Lacs in its savings bank account. The assessee was a non-filer and accordingly, the case was reopened. In the absence of any reply from the assessee, Ld. AO assessed entire deposits and interest income. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for the same very reasons. The Ld. AR has stated that there are no such cash deposits and therefore, the formation of belief was on wrong premise. However, at this stage, this argument cannot be accepted since the assessee has remained non- compliant before both the lower authorities. On these facts, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith. All the issues are kept open. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Facts as well as issue in AY 2012-13 are quite similar. Accordingly, our adjudication as above shall mutatis-mutandis apply to this appeal also.
Both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.