2020 (9) TMI 228 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows appeal, deletes Rs. 21,05,000 addition under section 69, finds legitimate source of cash deposit.

Shri Pappu Ram Saran Versus The ITO, Ward-2, Kishangarh

Shri Pappu Ram Saran Versus The ITO, Ward-2, Kishangarh - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the assessment completed under sections 144/147/148 without proper recording of reasons and issuance of notice.2. Validity of the notice issued under section 148 by a successor Assessing Officer based on reasons recorded by his predecessor.3. Invocation of clause (a) of Explanation-2 of section 147 without fulfilling the mandate of the proviso to section 147.4. Approval for issuing notice under section 148 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) in a mechanical manner.5. Justification of addition of Rs. 21,05,000 out of Rs. 27,50,000 made under section 69.6. Incorrect charging of interest under section 234B.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Assessment under Sections 144/147/148:The assessee contended that the assessment was completed without recording reasons and without issuance of notice under section 148, which is a mandatory requirement. The notice issued under section 148 by ITO, Ward-1, Kishangarh on 30.03.2017 was challenged as being without jurisdiction, invalid, and ab initio void. However, the Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail as it became academic due to the decision on the merits of the case.2. Validity of Notice Issued by Successor AO:The assessee argued that the notice under section 148 was issued by the successor Assessing Officer (Sh. Dinesh Kajot, ITO, Ward-1, Kishangarh) based on reasons recorded by his predecessor (Sh. Radhey Shyam Verma, ITO, Ward-1, Kishangarh), which was claimed to be invalid. This issue was also not specifically addressed in detail by the Tribunal as it was rendered academic by the decision on the merits.3. Invocation of Clause (a) of Explanation-2 of Section 147:The assessee claimed that the notice under section 148 was issued based on fallacious assumptions, surmises, conjectures, and wrong facts, without fulfilling the mandate of the proviso to section 147. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue in detail due to its decision on the merits of the case.4. Approval for Issuing Notice under Section 148:The assessee contended that the PCIT, Ajmer, accorded approval for issuing notice under section 148 in a mechanical manner without application of mind, thus not fulfilling the mandate of section 151. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail as it became academic due to the decision on the merits.5. Justification of Addition under Section 69:The Tribunal considered the merits of the addition sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee explained the source of the cash deposit of Rs. 27,50,000 as the sale proceeds of land sold jointly with other co-owners. The sale deed dated 08.04.2009 showed a sale consideration of Rs. 6,45,000. The CIT(A) allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 6,45,000 and sustained the addition of Rs. 21,05,000. The Tribunal noted the direct nexus between the sale transaction and the cash deposit. It observed that the sale deed and bank deposit dates were contemporaneous, and no contrary material was brought on record by the AO. The Tribunal relied on a similar case (M/s OM Plantation vs. ITO) and concluded that the source of the cash deposit was the sale consideration of the land. Consequently, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.6. Incorrect Charging of Interest under Section 234B:This issue was not specifically addressed in detail by the Tribunal as the primary focus was on the merits of the addition under section 69.Conclusion:The appeal of the assessee was allowed on the merits, with the Tribunal deleting the addition of Rs. 21,05,000 sustained by the CIT(A). The other issues raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the reopening of the assessment were rendered academic and were not decided.