2024 (4) TMI 1133 - AT - Income Tax

Reassessment under Section 147 upheld for unexplained cash deposits but penalty deleted for reasonable cause

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Versus The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward-1 (2), Bhavnaga

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Versus The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward-1 (2), Bhavnaga - TMI Issues Involved:1. Dismissal of appeal ex parte by CIT(A).2. Validity of invoking provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.3. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 28,67,73,656/- as unexplained cash credit and investment.4. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.Summary:Issue 1: Dismissal of appeal ex parte by CIT(A)The assessee argued that the dismissal of the appeal ex parte by the learned CIT(A) was violative of the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately but proceeded with the other grounds of appeal.Issue 2: Validity of invoking provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax ActThe assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not dispute that all necessary approvals and legal steps for initiating proceedings under Sections 147/148 were duly taken by the AO. Given the substantial cash deposits and credits in the assessee's bank account without filing a return of income, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order for reopening the assessment under Sections 147/148. Consequently, Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the assessee's appeal were dismissed.Issue 3: Confirmation of addition of Rs. 28,67,73,656/- as unexplained cash credit and investmentThe AO added the amount of Rs. 28,67,73,656/- as unexplained cash credit and investment under Sections 69A and 69 due to the assessee's failure to provide any explanation or details. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions, noting that the assessee failed to offer any explanation despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal examined the facts, including the investigation report which indicated that the Renukamata Society operated accounts in the names of individuals of meagre means, used for money laundering and other activities. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not the real beneficiary of the deposits and credits in his bank account and held that only 0.25% of the deposits/credits should be considered as the assessee's income. Thus, Ground No. 4 of the assessee's appeal was partly allowed.Issue 4: Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax ActThe assessee contended that the non-appearance in response to notices was due to reliance on the tax professional engaged by the Renukamata Society, who assured to handle the proceedings. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance and deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17.Conclusion:- The appeals related to the validity of invoking Section 147 and the ex parte dismissal by CIT(A) were dismissed.- The addition of Rs. 28,67,73,656/- was partly allowed, restricting the taxable amount to 0.25% of the deposits/credits.- The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17.Outcome:- Appeals for A.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 (ITA Nos. 690, 692 & 694/Ahd/2023) were partly allowed.- Appeals for A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 (ITA Nos. 691 & 693/Ahd/2023) regarding penalty were allowed.