TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Reopening of assessment quashed where bank cash deposits were unsecured loans, no substantive income discrepancy found</h1> <h3>Suresh Kumar Garg Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hisar</h3> ITAT Delhi (AT) quashed the reopening of assessment, holding it unsustainable where the cash deposit in the taxpayer's HDFC bank account resulted only in ... Reopening of assessment - cash deposit in his bank account maintained with HDFC bank and ended up in only adding the unsecured loans forming subject matter of adjudication - HELD THAT:- That being the clinching factual position, hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2011 (6) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Jet Airways (India) Ltd. [2010 (4) TMI 431 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] to quash the impugned reopening itself as not sustainable in law in very terms. Appeal against reopening under sections 147/148 for AY 2013-14 challenges validity of assessment when reopening was initiated in respect of cash deposits of Rs. 1,76,92,899 in the assessee's HDFC Bank account but the assessing officer ultimately added only unsecured loans of Rs. 11,39,328. Reliance on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) led to the conclusion that such reopening is 'not sustainable in law in very terms.' Given this defect in initiating the section 147/148 mechanism, the impugned reopening was quashed and the additions set aside. All other merits-related pleadings were held to be academic. Appeal allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
