2025 (4) TMI 1028 - AT - Income Tax

AO's reassessment quashed for mechanical approval and inadequate enquiry into time deposits under sections 147-148

Tej Singh Sinsinwar Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (2), Alwar

ITAT Jaipur quashed reassessment proceedings under sections 147-148 where AO reopened assessment based solely on information about time deposits in ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessee has not filed any return of income u/s 139(1) and the AO has initiated the proceedings u/s 148 on the basis of information in his possession that assessee has made time deposit in his bank account - HELD THAT:- We find no merit in the conclusion drawn by the AO and the ld.CIT (A) which are based on suspicion and without application of mind. Thus, the proceedings initiated vide notice under section 148 is void- ab-initio since the ld. PCIT, Alwar has not recorded proper satisfaction and gave approval without application of mind and in mechanical manner which is unjustified and bad-In-law. In view of the reasons set out above, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we are of the considered view that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, as set out earlier, were not sufficient reasons for initiating the assessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 148 of the IT Act, 1961. We, therefore, quash the reassessment proceedings. Time deposit in the bank account - Assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence regarding time deposit made during the year under consideration - AO considered the said information as reason to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Thus, the AO initiated proceedings for reopening of assessment and ultimately made addition on account of unexplained time deposit in the bank account. From perusal of Assessment order, we note that the AO has failed to make any enquiry in respect of the time deposits in the bank account reflecting the name of the bank, account numbers, nature of time deposit, source of time deposit etc. and further we note that the AO has not brought on record any evidence on the basis of which the reasons and conclusion was drawn. We also note that both the assessment order and appellate order has made no reference of specific section under which the addition has been made which is very much required to be mentioned by the AO so as to enable the assessee to represent his case accordingly and effectively. Therefore, non-mentioning the precise provision of law makes the impugned addition bad in law. We note that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in the case of Shri Ram Lal [2024 (8) TMI 1554 - ITAT JAIPUR] held that non-mentioning the precise provision of law makes the entire impugned addition bad in law. The assessee submitted that he was in service in the Indian Navy for 11 years (retired in 1988) Post retirement, he was actively and exclusively engaged in farming and driving agriculture income therefrom. Therefore, it will not be abnormal to assume that the appellant had accumulated fund over the period of time since it is a general practice of a person to save money in bank. We note from the submission of assesee that assessee in his first reply dated 23.07.2023, submitted that he had savings from Indian Navy Service and the time deposit were made from the agriculture income gathered over the time. Therefore, the source of time deposit was very well explained by the appellant that the time deposit was made from the available fund out of past savings and we note that neither the AO nor the ld. CIT (A) had brought any record to suggest that the assessee was not serving in the Indian Navy or have any other source of income. Thus addition made by the lower authorities deserves to be deleted. Appeal of assessee allowed. The core legal questions considered in this appeal are as follows:1. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) had jurisdiction and valid reasons to initiate reassessment proceedings under sections 147 read with 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), and whether the order passed under sections 147/144 was lawful and not without jurisdiction.2. Whether the AO applied his mind while recording reasons for reopening the assessment, and whether the reasons recorded satisfy the statutory requirements under section 147 of the Act.3. Whether the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 151 of the Act for issuance of notice under section 148 was accorded with proper application of mind or was mechanical and thus invalid.4. Whether the addition of Rs. 10,17,980/- made on account of unexplained time deposits in the bank account of the assessee was justified, considering the facts and evidence on record.5. Ancillary issues regarding the non-mention of the specific provisions under which the addition was made, and the adequacy of evidence to sustain the addition.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Jurisdiction and Validity of Reopening Proceedings under Sections 147/148The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under section 148 on the basis of information that the assessee had made time deposits amounting to Rs. 10,17,980/- in the relevant financial year but had not filed a return of income. The AO recorded reasons stating that there was a reason to believe that income to that extent had escaped assessment. The assessee challenged the reopening on grounds of jurisdiction and validity of reasons recorded.The Tribunal examined the reasons recorded by the AO and found them to be vague and incomplete. The reasons did not mention the date, bank name, account number, nature of the deposit, bifurcation of principal and interest, or the material on which the AO formed the belief of escapement of income. The AO relied on information from the Annual Information Return (AIR) but did not conduct an independent enquiry to verify the source or nature of the deposits.Further, the Tribunal noted that the remand report relied upon by the CIT(A) to support the reasons recorded was itself internally inconsistent and incomplete, referring only to one bank account when the deposits pertained to two accounts, and containing factual inaccuracies regarding deposit amounts and dates. This indicated that the AO had not applied his mind before reopening.Precedents relied upon include the Bombay High Court ruling that reasons recorded must be clear, unambiguous, and disclose the AO's mind, and cannot be supplemented by remand reports or affidavits. The Tribunal also cited multiple decisions emphasizing that mere information of bank deposits without tangible, cogent, and credible material is insufficient to form a reason to believe escapement of income. The belief must be based on material with a direct nexus to income escaping assessment and not mere suspicion or conjecture.Applying these principles, the Tribunal concluded that the reopening was based on vague information and suspicion, without application of mind, and thus was invalid and without jurisdiction.2. Application of Mind in Recording Reasons and Reliance on Remand ReportThe assessee contended that the reasons recorded by the AO did not disclose any application of mind and were deficient. The CIT(A) had relied on the remand report to uphold the reopening, but the Tribunal held that the remand report cannot substitute the mandatory requirement of recording valid reasons before issuing notice under section 148.The Tribunal emphasized that reasons must be read as recorded and cannot be supplemented or replaced by subsequent reports. The remand report itself showed factual inconsistencies and incomplete information, further evidencing non-application of mind by the AO. The CIT(A) also failed to critically examine the remand report and the deficiencies therein.Thus, the Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) acted mechanically without due diligence or independent verification, rendering the reopening invalid.3. Validity of Approval under Section 151 for Issuance of Notice under Section 148The assessee challenged the approval granted by the PCIT under section 151 on the ground that it was mechanical, without recording any satisfaction or application of mind. The approval was simply indicated by the word 'Approved' without any reasons or date.The Tribunal reviewed statutory provisions and judicial precedents which require that the specified authority must apply mind and record satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the AO before sanctioning issuance of notice under section 148. Mechanical or perfunctory approval without objective examination is unsustainable.Several decisions were cited, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, holding that mere recording of 'Approved' without reasons or objective satisfaction is invalid and vitiates the reassessment proceedings.Applying this legal framework, the Tribunal found that the PCIT's approval was given in a mechanical manner and was thus invalid, rendering the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.4. Justification of Addition of Rs. 10,17,980/- on Account of Time DepositsThe AO treated the entire amount of time deposits as income from other sources due to the assessee's failure to furnish documentary evidence regarding the source of the deposits. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting the assessee's failure to satisfactorily explain the source.The assessee contended that the addition was not sustainable for several reasons:No specific section under the Income Tax Act was mentioned in the assessment or appellate orders for the addition, which is a legal infirmity.The assessee owned agricultural land generating income, supported by 'jamabandi' (land records) and sales invoices for agricultural produce, which was the source of the deposits.The assessee had served in the Indian Navy and accumulated savings over the years, which also contributed to the deposits.It is a recognized difficulty in agricultural income cases to maintain detailed invoices, and courts have accepted estimation based on land holdings.The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) disputed ownership of agricultural land or the source of income from farming. The Tribunal relied on precedents holding that in absence of contrary evidence, agricultural income declared by the assessee is to be accepted. Further, the failure to mention the specific provision under which the addition was made renders the addition bad in law.Considering these facts and judicial authorities, the Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified and deserved to be deleted.5. Treatment of Competing Arguments and Final ConclusionsThe Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities, but the Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to apply mind and verify facts before reopening and making additions. The reliance on vague information and mechanical approval invalidated the reassessment.Since the reassessment was quashed on grounds of invalid reopening, other grounds relating to merits of addition became infructuous. However, the Tribunal expressed views on merits and deleted the addition for lack of evidence and non-mention of the legal provision.Significant Holdings'The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded. It is for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his mind through reasons recorded by him. He has to speak through his reasons. The reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. The reasons recorded must disclose his mind. Reasons are the manifestation of mind of the Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded should be self-explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing for the reasons.''No notice under section 148 shall be issued unless the specified authority is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. The power vested with the PCIT to grant approval comes with a duty to apply his mind to the proposal put up by the AO before granting approval. The said power cannot be exercised casually and in a routine manner.''Merely time deposit in the bank itself would not lead to the conclusion or belief that the said amount is assessable as income and has escaped assessment. The AO must verify the source, nature, and component of such deposit before forming a reason to believe.''Non-mentioning the precise provision of law under which addition is made renders the addition bad in law.''In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, agricultural income estimated and offered by the assessee has to be accepted.''Reopening of assessment without application of mind and based on vague information is invalid and void ab initio.'The Tribunal ultimately quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147/148 of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12 on grounds of invalid reasons and mechanical approval. The addition of Rs. 10,17,980/- was deleted for lack of evidence and non-mention of the applicable legal provision. The appeal was allowed accordingly.