AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... asked the details of sources and nature of cash deposits. The petitioner was asked to file the copies of bank accounts and other evidences. The authorised representative of the petitioner filed copies of Bank statement. The Assessing Officer, on scrutiny of bank accounts, completed the reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 on 30.12.2011 by adding the short fall in cash withdrawal of Rs. 10,50,000/- as unexplained income. The respondent once again reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 on 25.03.2016. The petitioner filed a reply dated 11.04.2016 to treat the return already filed on 30.07.2009 as the one filed in response to the notice and also requested to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment. The respondent, vide letter dated 27.04.2016 furnished the reasons by stating that during the financial year 2008-09, one S.Nagarajan has received a sum of Rs. 2.75 crores from the deceased L.S.Abinesh, husband of the petitioner, for purchase of property through his bank account and that sources for such advance made require to be verified. The petitioner, through letter dated 06.05.2016, filed their objections to reopen the assessment by st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduced the Bank statement of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank also before the Assessing Officer wherein the name of Nagarajan figures and therefore, the same tantamount to specific information available in respect of the property purchased dealing with S.Nagarajan. This clarified that the evidence submitted by her including the bank statement can be treated as sufficient and relevant only insofar as the issue of verification of sources for cash deposits and there has been no mention by the Assessee regarding the particulars of purchase of property transaction with S.Nagarajan as well as its source as there was no queries regarding the issue in the original reassessment proceedings. Mere production of bank statement etc., does not amount to disclosure made by the assessee on the said issue and the said information was specifically received by the Assessing Officer only after completion of the first re-assessment and the said information was never disclosed by the assessee prior to it. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the reopening of assessment now initiated was on the basis of existing material or amount to change of opinion. 4. The petitioner filed a reply to the counter affidavit wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 dated 21.02.2011 by stating that he had reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. It is seen that the issue involved in the above reassessment proceedings was in respect of the cash deposits made by the assessee during the previous year in savings bank account maintained with Axis Bank, Annanagar Branch, Chennai, to the tune of Rs. 93 lakhs and that the Assessing Officer wanted to verify the details of sources and nature of such cash deposits. Therefore, it is evident that the present issue, namely, the advance made to the said S.Nagarajan to the tune of Rs. 2.75 crores for purchase of property was not the issue during the earlier reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, in pursuant to the earlier reopening of the assessment under section 147, an order of assessment was passed on 30.12.2011 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Only during the course of such re-assessment proceedings, the assessee has filed the statement of receipts and payments, wherein payment made to S.Nagarajan as advance to the tune of Rs. 2.75 crores has also been referred to. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue wants to invoke the extended period of limitation, by taking shelter under the first proviso, it has to satisfy that escapement of income was by the reason either by failure on the part of the assessee to make the return under section 139 or in response to notice issued under sub section 142(1) or section 148 or by his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that assessment year. In this case, it is the claim of the Revenue that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Admittedly, the advance made to S.Nagarajan to the tune of Rs. 2.75 crores was not disclosed in the original return filed by the Assessee as early as on 30.07.2009. It is true that the assessment was reopened subsequently, by issuing notice under section 148 dated 21.02.2011 but for different purpose, namely, for verifying the details of sources and nature of cash deposits made by the assessee in the savings bank account maintained to the tune of Rs. 93 lakhs. Admittedly, the assessee has participated in the re-assessment proceedings and filed their reply requesting the Assessing Officer only to treat the return already fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice of the Assessing Officer, while reopening the assessment earlier, is certainly, a tangible material, based on which, the present reopening under section 147, can be resorted to. Admittedly, this material was not existing at the time of original assessment. No doubt, it is sought to be contended that the said material was placed before the Assessing Officer during the earlier reassessment proceedings and however, he has not taken note of the same. I have already pointed out that the earlier reopening of the assessment was based on some other issue and therefore, the assessee is not justified in contending that no new material is available before the Assessing Officer for the present reopening. On the other hand, it is evident that the subject matter material was placed only by default, as the first time before the Assessing Officer, during the hearing of earlier reassessment proceedings in respect of a different issue and therefore, such material is undoubtedly, a new material for the Assessing Officer to resort to reopening of the assessment once again. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the assessee did not file a fresh return in response to Section 148 notice and o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c); (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year. ............ 12. Taking note of the fact that end of the assessment year 2009-10 fell on 31.03.2010, the impugned notice under section 148 having been issued on 15.03.2016, I am of the view that the same is well within the period of six years and therefore, I find that the impugned reopening of the assessment is not barred by limitation as contended by the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that notice issued under section 148 dated 15.03.2016 did not allege that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all the materials necessary for the assessment and therefore, the issuance of mere notice without such material averment is bad. I do not think that the learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in making such contention, more particularly, when the proceedings issued with reasons for reopening the assessment i....