2019 (9) TMI 346 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal quashes re-assessment under Income Tax Act, emphasizing accuracy in assessing cash deposits

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the re-assessment proceedings initiated under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. It held that ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - unexplained cash deposits - HELD THAT:- AO in the reasons recorded incorrect facts that assessee made cash deposit of ₹ 9 lakhs, despite assessing officer has accepted that assessee made cash deposit of ₹ 7,50,000/- only. AO while recording the reasons has not applied mind to the material on record. Source of purchase of shares have been accepted by the assessing officer, which was also found factually incorrect. Further the deposit in the bank account per se cannot be income of the assessee. It is mere suspicion of the assessing officer based on incorrect facts that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Following the reasons for the decision in the case of Shri Abrar Ahmad Qasimi, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(5), New Delhi [2018 (6) TMI 1655 - ITAT DELHI] set aside the orders of the authorities below and quash the reopening of the assessment in the matter. Resultantly, the addition made in the re-assessment would stand deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Validity of re-assessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.2. Addition of cash deposits and purchase of shares in the assessment year.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of re-assessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.The case involved a challenge to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer reopened the assessment based on information regarding cash deposits and share investments by the assessee. The reasons for reopening stated that income had escaped assessment due to unexplained sources of cash deposits and share purchases. The assessee contended that the reopening was invalid as the assessing officer had incorrectly recorded the cash deposits. The Tribunal held that the mere deposit of cash in a bank account does not automatically indicate escaped income. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessment, stating that the assessing officer's actions were based on incorrect facts and mere suspicion.Issue 2: Addition of cash deposits and purchase of shares in the assessment year.Regarding the addition of cash deposits and share purchases, the assessing officer made an addition to the income based on unexplained sources of cash deposits. The CIT(A) partially upheld the addition, reducing it by a small amount. The assessee challenged this addition in the present appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer had accepted the source of purchase of shares, which contradicted the reasons for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the deposit in a bank account alone does not constitute taxable income. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the addition made in the reassessment, as it was based on incorrect facts and lacked proper application of mind by the assessing officer.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashed the reopening of the assessment, and deleted the addition made in the reassessment. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper application of law and facts in re-assessment proceedings to ensure the accuracy and validity of tax assessments.