AO's reassessment after four years quashed for incorrect facts and non-application of mind regarding cash deposits

The Bombay HC held that reopening of assessment after four years was invalid due to incorrect facts and non-application of mind by the AO. The AO erroneously recorded cash deposits of Rs. 3,73,72,707/- when HDFC Bank certified only Rs. 1,87,39,187/- was deposited in cash during FY 2012-13. The confusion arose from partnership firm conversion to private limited company with different PANs, causing bank to quote wrong PAN in AIR Report. The AO failed to examine that the alleged separate deposit of Rs. 1,86,33,520/- was actually part of the certified amount, not additional. Without proper application of mind and based on incorrect facts, the reassessment proceedings were declared null and void. Decision favored assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Alleged escapement of income chargeable to tax.
3. Application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO) and sanctioning authority.
4. Fulfillment of conditions under Section 147 of the Act.
5. Jurisdiction of reassessment proceedings.

Summary:

Validity of Reassessment Notices:

The petitioner challenged the reassessment notices dated 30th March 2021 and 21st June 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2013-2014, and the impugned order dated 3rd February 2022 rejecting the objections to these notices. The reassessment notices were initiated in the petitioner's capacity as the successor of Cello Stationery Products Private Limited (CSPPL), which merged with the petitioner effective 1st April 2016. The AO issued the notices stating that there was a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

Alleged Escapement of Income:

The AO's reasons for believing that income had escaped assessment were based on information from the ITBA System, which noted cash deposits totaling Rs. 3,73,72,707/- in CSPPL's bank account. However, the petitioner argued that there was a duplicity in the amount of cash deposits due to double counting, and the actual cash deposits were only Rs. 1,87,39,187/-. The petitioner provided evidence, including bank statements and a certificate from HDFC Bank, to support this claim.

Application of Mind by AO and Sanctioning Authority:

The court found that the AO and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax did not apply their minds independently. The AO recorded reasons to believe without examining the details provided by the petitioner, and the sanctioning authority granted approval without proper consideration. The court noted that the AO's reasons reflected non-application of mind and were based on incorrect facts.

Fulfillment of Conditions under Section 147:

The court observed that the proviso to Section 147 of the Act applies since the notice for reopening the assessment was issued more than four years after the relevant assessment year. The court held that the conditions prescribed in Section 147 were not fulfilled, as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose necessary facts. The court emphasized that the AO must possess tangible material to form a prima facie belief of escapement of income, which was not present in this case.

Jurisdiction of Reassessment Proceedings:

The court concluded that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction due to the lack of independent application of mind and incorrect facts. The court quashed the impugned notices and the order rejecting the petitioner's objections, making the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the reassessment notices and the impugned order, ruling in favor of the petitioner. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---