Appeal allowed, reassessment quashed due to invalid reopening under Section 147. Revenue appeal dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by quashing the reassessment order, finding the reopening of assessment under Section 147 invalid due to improper recording of reasons for the belief that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the addition of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act before the filing of return in response to notice under Section 148.
3. Validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
4. Validity of the deletion of addition of unexplained cash credit by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Addition of Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68:
The assessee appealed against the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 92,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed this addition, which the assessee contested, arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not properly consider the submissions made by the appellant company. The AO had also added Rs. 1.75 crores received as unsecured loans, which was later deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).

2. Validity of the Issuance of Notice under Section 143(2):
The assessee raised an additional ground that the AO erred in issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on 08.02.2010, prior to the filing of the return of income in response to the notice under Section 148 issued on 22.04.2010. The assessee argued that the notice under Section 143(2) should be issued only after the filing of the return of income.

3. Validity of the Reopening of Assessment under Section 147:
The AO issued a notice under Section 148 on 03.12.2009 for reopening the assessment, citing unexplained cash credit and unsecured loans as reasons. The assessee contended that the AO failed to record proper reasons for the belief that income had escaped assessment, which is a prerequisite under Section 147. The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons were not specific and did not quantify the extent of the escaped income. The Tribunal cited multiple judgments, including CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani, Martech Peripherals P. Ltd Vs. DCIT, Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs. CIT, and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., to support the decision that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as the reasons recorded did not satisfy the provisions of Section 148.

4. Validity of the Deletion of Addition of Unexplained Cash Credit by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals):
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 1.75 crores out of the total addition of Rs. 2.67 crores made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the depositors. However, since the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order, the Revenue's appeal became infructuous and was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by quashing the reassessment order, finding the reopening of assessment under Section 147 invalid due to improper recording of reasons for the belief that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous. The order was pronounced on 16th February 2022 at Ahmedabad.

---