TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ignoring the fact that the AO possessed formidable information suggesting that necessary particulars pertaining to his income were not disclosed by the assessee and thereby substantial income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment." The learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has regarding asst. yr. 1983-84 (ITA No. 1022 (Jp) of 1993) contended that the AO got information from anti-corruption department and on that basis he formed his belief that taxable income has escaped assessment. He has contended that the learned Dy. CIT(A) has observed in his impugned order that the facts were already disclosed, but it is not known as to before whom the same were disclosed. He has known as to before whom the same were disclosed. He has referred to para 4 on p. 2 of Dy. CIT(A)'s order and. contended that the learned Dy. CIT(A) could, in the circumstances, have set aside the assessment orders and restored the matter to AO. He has contended that the Dy. CIT(A) has not examined quantum and has straightaway cancelled the assessments. He has contended that sufficiency/adequacy of reasons cannot be adjudged by Dy. CIT(A). 5. Regarding asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1986-87 and 1988-89 he has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded that source of money for purchase of plots was not mentioned. He has contended that this is a material fact under s. 147. He has contended that the information given on p. 4 of P.B. doe not give sufficient particulars. He has contended that in these cases, by figures of subsequent assessments, it is proved that there had been escapement of income. He has contended that in asst. yr. 1983-84, it is only after receipt of information from ACD that the notice under s. 148 was given. 9. We have considered the rival contentions as also the materials on record. 10. First we take up asst. yr. 1983-84. For this assessment year return of income was not filed and the income as shown in annexures of asst. yr. 1984-85 was at Rs. 14,520, that is below taxable limit. The assessee's assessed income under s. 147, is however Rs. 56,210. Obviously there has been an escapement of income. As the assessee had not filed the return (for asst. yr. 1983-84) and the Department had received the information from ACD that the assessee had purchased a number of plots and had made huge investments in construction, which was general though, but coupled with the subsequent factum/quantum of assessed incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; undisclosed source --------------------------------------------------------------------- Declared Amount Basis of Declared Amount Basis of in return added addition in return added addition --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1984-85 5,500 (18,000- Estimate 12,000 12,000 Non- 5,500) (C.C.) acceptance- =12,500  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; Declared in Amount Basis of addition Return added --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1984-85 - - - - 1985-86 - - - - 1986-87 - - - &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not on any new fact/information to have been in the possession of AO. The information, stated to have been there in the possession of AO for initiating proceeding under s. 148, is as under: For asst. yr. 1984-85: "As per the report and Panchnama received from the anti-corruption department, assessee has made huge investments on plots and on construction and deposits in bank in his name and in the name of his family members. The assessee has not fully and truly disclosed the income and material facts." For asst. yrs. 1985-86, 1986-87 & 1988-89: "The anti-corruption department has detected huge investments during the raid conducted by them in the premises of the assessee, which the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all the material facts necessary for his assessment for this year." As evident from the above the information is quite vague and general and not specific. This, viewed in the context of the nature of additions made by AO as detailed in the table given above for these three asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1986-87, the only conclusion that one as a man of ordinary prudence, can justifiably make is that there seem to be in fact no reasons before AO to come to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sultant reassessments, as seen above, as well are no less supportive of the view that the so-called belief, as purported to be there, is devoid of reasons at all. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the AO in effect, did not have reasons to believe that the taxable income had escaped assessment in the asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1986-87. In that view of the matter we find no fault with the impugned order of learned CIT(A) in holding the issuance of notice under s. 148 for these three years to be invalid/void ab initio, and in turn cancelling the reassessment orders for these years. 13. Now we take up asst. yr. 1988-89. In this year the additions in assessment under s. 147 are somewhat high but the major additions are mainly in income from medical practice, due to higher estimate thereof and in income from undisclosed sources resulting on account of non-acceptance of cash credit as genuine. An addition of Rs. 4,000 is on account of registration expenses but the purchase of plot and the source of its purchase money already stood mentioned in the cash flow statement and statement of affairs. Addition of Rs. 6,620 is due to excess of expenditure over earned income as shown, ....