2018 (11) TMI 1979 - AT - Income Tax

AO's additions based on conjecture dismissed; fresh inquiry into FIR required before further action under relevant tax rules

Anand Kumar Tripathi Versus ITO, Ward 3 (5), Kanpur.

Anand Kumar Tripathi Versus ITO, Ward 3 (5), Kanpur. - TMI ISSUES: Whether the addition of unexplained bank account credits as undisclosed income under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified when the assessee denies ownership and operation of the bank account involved in the transactions.Whether the assessing officer and appellate authority erred in disregarding the FIR lodged by the assessee alleging fraud by a third party who allegedly operated the bank account without the assessee's knowledge.Whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 is valid in light of the assessee's explanation and documentary evidence regarding the disputed bank transactions.Whether the evidence and explanations provided by the assessee, including statements on oath and police reports, require a fresh inquiry before confirming additions as escaped income. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The addition of Rs. 98,08,000/- credited to the disputed bank account as undisclosed income was not justified without proper inquiry into the FIR lodged by the assessee, as the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider this unrebutted documentary evidence.The authorities below erred in dismissing the assessee's explanation that the bank account was fraudulently operated by a third party using blank signed cheques, without investigating the fate of the FIR filed against the said third party.The initiation of proceedings under section 147 requires a formation of belief based on credible evidence, which was lacking here due to the failure to examine the police investigation and the assessee's sworn statement.The matter is remanded to the assessing officer for a fresh adjudication afresh in accordance with law, with due opportunity to the assessee to prove his case and for the AO to inquire into the FIR and related police enquiry. RATIONALE: The Court applied the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which permits reopening of assessment only if income has escaped assessment and there is a valid formation of belief supported by material.The Court emphasized the need for proper inquiry into the documentary evidence (FIR and police enquiry) submitted by the assessee, which was disregarded by the lower authorities, resulting in a flawed conclusion based on surmise and conjecture.The decision reflects the principle that unexplained bank credits cannot be treated as undisclosed income without a thorough investigation, especially when the assessee denies involvement and provides credible evidence of fraud.The remand directs adherence to principles of natural justice by affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to substantiate his claims before confirming any addition.