NAGESH SHRIMANT GAVALI,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 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 reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law because the primary reason for reopening, the cash deposit, was not added to the assessee's income. Therefore, the entire reassessment was deemed invalid.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on the belief that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 25,01,100/-. However, during the reassessment, the AO did not make any addition related to this cash deposit.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 when the alleged reason for reopening was not substantiated by any addition to the assessee's income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 26.03.2024Pronounced: 10.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 26.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1057676539(1), dated 03.11.2023, in proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

I have heard learned DR and perused the case file.

3.

Suffice to say, the Assessing Officer’s herein had initiated sec.148/147 proceedings against the assessee after recording reasons to believe that he had deposited cash of 2 ITA.No.5/PUN./2024 Rs.25,01,100/- in Vishweshwar Sahakari Bank Ltd., Pune in the relevant previous year Learned DR fails to dispute the clinching fact that the impugned re-assessment dated 26.12.2019 had assessed the assessee’s alleged customer advance(s) in tuition activity(ies) of Rs.63,52,600/- after deducting 35% thereof as the corresponding expenditure; resulting in the impugned addition of Rs.41,29,190/- as well as interest of Rs.1,76,082/- received from fixed deposits with M/s. Baramati Sahakari Bank Ltd.; respectively. That being the case, there is no addition made regarding the foregoing sole reason of reopening. Faced with this situation, I quote CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) that the impugned reopening/re-assessment itself is not sustainable in law once the learned Assessing Officer had not added the foregoing sum of Rs.25,01,100/- (supra). Ordered accordingly.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →