2025 (8) TMI 944 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening under s.147 valid on reason-to-believe standard; s.68 additions on unexplained bank deposits remanded for fresh probe

Pallav Versus DCIT Circle– 2, Jamnagar

ITAT RAJKOT held the reassessment notice under s.147 was valid: AO need only have a reason to believe escapement of income and is not required to complete ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s.68 - unexplained deposits in bank - HELD THAT:- The Income Tax Act, envisages that the assessing officer should only have a reason to believe to re-open a case, he need not establish beyond doubt that there is escapement of income before issuing the notice. AO is not required to carry out any investigation before reopening as held in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd [1997 (12) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] as held that in determining whether commencement of reassessment proceedings was valid, it has only to be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of reopening. In view of this, the action of the assessing officer to re-open the case by issuing of notice u/s.148 was held to be valid by ld. CIT(A). We have gone through the above findings of the ld. CIT(A) and noticed that there is no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the ld. CIT(A). Addition u/s 68 - unexplained deposit - The assessee has never come forward to explain the entries in the bank account even after providing various opportunities to do so at various levels of the proceedings. Now before us, the assessee has submitted reconciliation and explanation of the entries in the bank statement, therefore, we are of the view that such reconciliation and explanation of the assessee, should be examined by the assessing officer, with documentary evidences, and supporting documents, which the assessee, now, ready to submit before the assessing officer. For the reasons given above, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set aside and the issue needs to be looked into afresh by the assessing officer, in the light of the observations as set-out above. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED Whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was valid and based on sufficient reasons. Whether the addition of Rs. 7,20,96,670/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act was justified in absence of satisfactory explanation or documentary evidence from the assessee. Whether the explanations and reconciliations submitted by the assessee regarding the bank deposits and transactions warrant fresh examination and reconsideration of the addition. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 147 Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 147 of the Income Tax Act permits reopening of assessment if the Assessing Officer (AO) has 'reason to believe' that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The AO is not required to establish escapement of income beyond doubt at the stage of reopening. The test is whether there is prima facie material to justify reopening. Investigation or detailed inquiry is not mandatory before issuing notice under section 148. This principle is supported by judicial precedent holding that sufficiency or correctness of material is not to be examined at reopening stage. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the AO recorded reasons for reopening and obtained necessary approval before issuing notice under section 148. The AO's belief was based on bank statement showing large credits not disclosed in the original return. The Court found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion that reopening was valid. The AO had prima facie material, namely the unexplained bank credits, to form a reason to believe income had escaped assessment. Key evidence and findings: The AO identified credits amounting to Rs. 7,20,96,670/- in the bank account during the relevant financial year, which were not explained or disclosed in the original return. The AO issued notices under sections 148, 143(2), and 142(1), but the assessee failed to comply with several notices, indicating non-cooperation. Application of law to facts: Given the unexplained large bank credits and lack of disclosure by the assessee, the AO was justified in reopening the assessment. The Court held that the reopening was based on valid reasons and complied with statutory requirements. Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee contended that reasons for reopening were vague and there was no application of mind. The Court rejected this, emphasizing that the AO had tangible material and had applied mind before reopening. Conclusions: The reopening of assessment under section 147 was valid and justified. The ground challenging reopening was dismissed. Issue 2: Justification of Addition of Rs. 7,20,96,670/- as Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68 Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 treats unexplained cash credits as income if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such credits. The burden lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the entries and source of funds. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO treated the entire amount credited in the bank account as unexplained cash credit due to absence of satisfactory explanation or documentary evidence. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting that the assessee failed to furnish ledgers, names and addresses of creditors or debtors, or any supporting evidence despite multiple opportunities. Key evidence and findings: The AO relied on the bank statement showing large cash and cheque deposits. The assessee did not comply with notices seeking explanation or evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed that the assessee failed to explain the source of receipts or substantiate the bank entries. Application of law to facts: In absence of any credible explanation or documentary proof, the addition under section 68 was warranted. The Court recognized that unexplained credits must be added to income. Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued that the deposits included automatic fixed deposits (sweep accounts), interest on FDs, cash sales, and sales through cheque/POS/credit card, all duly accounted for in books and tax returns. The assessee contended that the AO erred in treating these as unexplained credits. The Court observed that the assessee had not earlier submitted supporting documents such as ledgers, sales registers, or names and addresses of parties involved, and had failed to cooperate during assessment and appellate proceedings. The explanations were submitted only before the Tribunal. Conclusions: The addition was justified at the stage of AO and CIT(A) due to lack of evidence and cooperation. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had now submitted reconciliation and explanations, which warranted fresh examination. Issue 3: Need for Fresh Examination of Assessee's Reconciliation and Explanation Relevant legal framework: The principle of natural justice requires that an assessee be given opportunity to produce evidence and explain transactions before adverse conclusions are drawn. Reassessment proceedings allow for fresh evidence and explanations to be considered. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee had now furnished detailed reconciliation of the bank credits, including: Auto Fixed Deposit (Sweep Account) transactions amounting to Rs. 4,42,26,000 with explanation that bank balance exceeding specified limit automatically converts into FD and re-conversion is reflected in bank statement. Interest on Fixed Deposits (Rs. 1,16,802) accounted for in profit and loss account and tax returns. Cash deposits (Rs. 1,80,88,225) claimed to be from cash sales and receipts from debtors, supported by books of accounts. Cheque return entries and sales through cheques/POS/credit card (Rs. 95,42,141) duly accounted and declared in returns. The Tribunal emphasized that these explanations and reconciliations should be examined afresh by the AO with opportunity to the assessee to produce documentary evidence and substantiate the claims. Key evidence and findings: The assessee submitted bank statements, ledger accounts, cash books, sales registers, tax audit reports, audited accounts, and VAT returns to support the reconciliation. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s confirmation of addition without considering these newly submitted explanations and evidence was not appropriate. The matter required remand for fresh adjudication. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to explain the source during assessment and appellate proceedings. The Tribunal acknowledged this but noted the right of the assessee to produce evidence before the AO and the need for fair opportunity. Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order on this issue and directed the AO to reconsider the addition after examining the assessee's explanations and documentary evidence, providing opportunity of hearing and allowing further evidence if necessary. Overall Conclusions The reopening of assessment under section 147 was valid and justified on prima facie material. The addition under section 68 was justified at the stage of AO and CIT(A) due to lack of explanation and evidence. The assessee's subsequent submission of detailed reconciliation and supporting documents warrants fresh examination by the AO. The matter is remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the bank credits with evidence. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes subject to fresh decision by AO.