Reassessment and best judgment assessment upheld, but cash deposit addition remanded for fresh verification of dual PAN explanation.

Reassessment under section 148 was sustained where the Assessing Officer had prima facie information of substantial cash deposits and the assessee failed to file a return or respond to statutory notices, making best judgment assessment under section 144 valid. However, the addition based on the cash deposits was not finally upheld because the assessee's explanation of dual PAN usage and supporting audit records had not been properly examined. The disputed addition was therefore remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification, with the reassessment proceedings otherwise remaining undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and completion of assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were justified in the absence of return compliance and response to notices; (ii) Whether the addition arising from cash deposits in the bank account required fresh verification in view of the assessee's claim regarding dual PAN and supporting audit records.

Issue (i): Whether reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and completion of assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were justified in the absence of return compliance and response to notices.

Analysis: The material available before the Assessing Officer showed substantial cash deposits in a bank account and non-filing of return in response to the information received. On that basis, the Assessing Officer had a prima facie basis to believe that income had escaped assessment. As the assessee did not comply with the statutory notices, the assessment was validly completed in best judgment manner under the reassessment framework.

Conclusion: The challenge to the reopening and best judgment assessment was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition arising from cash deposits in the bank account required fresh verification in view of the assessee's claim regarding dual PAN and supporting audit records.

Analysis: The assessee claimed that the bank account was operated under one PAN while the return and audit report were filed under another PAN, and that the deposits stood explained through the disclosed business records. Since this explanation had not been properly examined in the first round and the assessee was required to substantiate the linkage with evidence before the Assessing Officer, a fresh opportunity was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The matter relating to the addition was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were upheld, but the substantive issue of the cash deposit addition was sent back for fresh adjudication, making the appeal succeed only to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment is supported by prima facie information and there is complete non-compliance, the reopening and best judgment assessment are sustainable, but a disputed addition may still be remanded for fresh verification where the assessee raises a plausible explanation requiring evidentiary examination.

---