Appeal partly allowed as Tribunal deems reopening of assessment invalid.

The Tribunal found the reopening of the assessment based on cash deposits invalid as the addition was made using the Net Profit ratio instead. The Tribunal emphasized that income prompting reopening must be assessed. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, quashing the assessment order. The additional grounds of appeal were deemed irrelevant due to the primary issue resolution in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reopening the assessment under Section 147 based on cash deposits.
2. Validity of making additions based on the Gross Profit (G.P.) ratio instead of the cash deposits.
3. Consideration of additional grounds of appeal by CIT(A).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Reopening the Assessment under Section 147 Based on Cash Deposits:
The primary issue revolved around whether the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on AIR information regarding cash deposits amounting to Rs. 11,00,000/- was justified. The assessee contended that the reopening was invalid as the addition was ultimately made on the basis of the Net Profit (N.P.) ratio rather than the cash deposits. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236, which clarified that if the reason for reopening the assessment is not substantiated, no other income can be assessed independently. The Tribunal found that the case was indeed reopened based on the cash deposits, but no addition was made on this basis, rendering the reopening invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1 in favor of the assessee.

2. Validity of Making Additions Based on the Gross Profit (G.P.) Ratio Instead of the Cash Deposits:
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had reopened the case based on cash deposits but made additions based on the N.P. ratio, which was not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in the case of Black & Veatch Prichard Inc., which followed the Jet Airways judgment, stating that if the income that prompted the reopening is not assessed, the AO cannot independently assess other income. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must assess the income that led to the reopening and also any other income that comes to notice during the proceedings. Since the AO did not assess the cash deposits, the addition based on the N.P. ratio was invalid.

3. Consideration of Additional Grounds of Appeal by CIT(A):
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not consider additional grounds of appeal despite multiple hearings and remand reports. However, since the Tribunal allowed relief on Ground No. 1, it declared the remaining grounds as infructuous, meaning they were no longer relevant for decision.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment based on cash deposits was invalid as the addition was made on a different basis (N.P. ratio). Therefore, the appeal was partly allowed, and the assessment order was quashed. The Tribunal did not address the additional grounds of appeal due to the resolution of the primary issue in favor of the assessee.

Final Order:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 20/09/2021.

---