2025 (1) TMI 28 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening assessment upheld for undisclosed bank deposits, 25% treated as income, penalty confirmed for audit failure under section 271B

Bajrangbali Tufanbhai Das Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Navsari

Bajrangbali Tufanbhai Das Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Navsari - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe legal judgment primarily deals with the following core issues:Whether the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 and the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was justified.Whether the addition of the entire amount of cash deposits in the undisclosed bank account was appropriate.Whether the estimation of profit at 8% of the turnover by the CIT(A) was correct.Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited was justified.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISReopening of Assessment under Section 147 and Notice under Section 148Legal Framework and Precedents: The reopening of an assessment under Section 147 requires a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. Precedents such as Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. and ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. establish that at the stage of reopening, the sufficiency or correctness of the reasons cannot be questioned.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal upheld the reopening, citing that the non-disclosure of a bank account with significant cash deposits constituted a prima facie reason for reopening.Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the reopening of assessment.Addition of Cash DepositsLegal Framework and Precedents: The onus is on the taxpayer to explain the nature and source of cash deposits. The CIT(A) relied on various Supreme Court decisions to support the addition of unexplained cash deposits.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the taxpayer failed to provide sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits. However, considering the possibility of business-related transactions, the Tribunal deemed it reasonable to estimate 25% of the cash deposits as income.Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the AO to add 25% of the cash deposits as income, partially allowing the taxpayer's appeal.Estimation of Profit at 8%Legal Framework and Precedents: Under presumptive taxation schemes, such as Section 44AD, income can be estimated at a fixed rate, typically 8% of turnover.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 8%, noting that the taxpayer's own return reflected a similar profit rate.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 8% of the turnover.Penalty under Section 271BLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 271B imposes a penalty for failure to get accounts audited when required under Section 44AB. The provision allows for exceptions if reasonable cause is demonstrated.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law does not constitute a reasonable cause for non-compliance. The taxpayer failed to provide a valid reason for not conducting an audit.Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the penalty, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSReopening of Assessment: 'There should be prima facie reason at the initial stage of reopening. The sufficiency or correctness of the reason cannot be examined at the threshold.'Addition of Cash Deposits: 'In our view, it will be fair and reasonable if 25% of the cash deposit of Rs. 13,20,535/- is taken as the income of assessee.'Estimation of Profit: 'The decision of CIT(A) in estimating income @ 8% is upheld.'Penalty under Section 271B: 'The reason given by the assessee that he was not aware of provisions of section44AB of the Act would not constitute 'reasonable cause' u/s 273B of the Act.'The final determinations on each issue were as follows:The reopening of assessments was upheld.The addition of cash deposits was partially allowed, with 25% deemed as income.The estimation of profit at 8% was upheld.The penalty under Section 271B was affirmed.In conclusion, the appeals were partly allowed, with specific directions for the AO regarding the addition of cash deposits, while the other grounds were dismissed.