TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts in-so-far as are relevant are that the assessee was served a notice u/s. 148(1) (dated 28.03.2012) on 29.03.2012. No return of income was filed by the assessee in response thereto within the regular 30 day period, as stated in the said notice, or in fact even thereafter. Notice u/s. 142(1) was accordingly issued on 16.05.2012, and the proceedings continued with. The deposit of Rs. 20,60,917 in his bank account was explained by the assessee vide his letter dated 10.12.2012, as under: (a) cash gift of Rs. 15 lacs from his father-in-law S. Jagjit Singh; (b) sale proceeds of crops in cash (Rs. 4 lacs) The same was subsequently modified (vide letters dated 29.01.2013 and 12.02.2013) to state of Rs. 4 lacs as received by him from one, S. Dilbagh Singh s/o Sh. Tarlochan Singh, r/o Village Balachak, Tarn Taran, on 15.02.2005. The same was found, in the absence of satisfactory and necessary evidences, as unexplained and, accordingly, deemed as unexplained bank deposit/s vide the impugned assessment. The assessee had, prior to the said assessment, e-filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 44,690 and agricultural income of Rs. 4 lacs on 20.3.2013. The reassessment being, thus, wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld add, it appears, had been filed after the prescribed period therefor in the notice u/s. 148(1). At this stage, Sh. Kalia was referred to the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Ram Narain Bansal [2011] 202 Taxman 213 (P&H). In that case an assessment framed u/s. 147 without issue of notice u/s. 143(2) was regarded by the Hon'ble High Court as valid. Sh. Kalia responded, on the next date of hearing, by relying, once again, on decision in Hotel Blue Moon (supra), stating it to be by the Apex Court. 3. I have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 The assessment in Hotel Blue Moon (supra) was u/s. 158BC which, it was explained, had to be observing the procedure under Chapter XIV-B of the Act; the assessment being u/s. 143(3) only. This, it noted, was made clear by the use of the words 'as far as may be' in s. 158BC(b), which provides for inquiry and assessment. The same itself states that the AO shall determine the undisclosed income for the block period in the manner provided u/s. 158BB and the provisions of s. 142, sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s. 143, s. 144 and s. 145 shall, 'so far as may be', apply. This, therefore, made the provision of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f conferred the jurisdiction upon the AO to call for a return and frame the assessment thereunder. There was no reference to s. 143, as was the case for s. 158BC. Reference was made by it to its earlier decision in CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [2011] 62 DTR 37 (Del), wherein the assessment was u/s. 147, as obtains in the instant case. 3.3 The assumption of jurisdiction for an assessment u/s. 147 is by the issue of a valid notice u/s. 148, as explained in R.K. Upadhyaya (supra). The same view had earlier been expressed by the Hon'ble High Courts, including by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, prior there to, as in Jai Hanuman Trading Co. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 36 (P&H)(FB); CIT v. Sheo Kumari Devi [1986] 157 ITR 13 (Patna)(FB). There is no reference to, either as regards the assumption of jurisdiction for an assessment u/s. 147, or its completion, to section 143(2) of the Act. Why, in a particular case, the assessee may not file a return in response to the notice u/s. 148(1), as in the instant case, so that the Assessing Officer (AO) is constrained to frame the assessment u/s. 144. The AO, on the compliance of the notice u/s. 148(1) by filing return within time,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee before framing regular assessment, so that where this condition is satisfied, its' non- issue would not be fatal to the proceedings. This is as the Hon'ble Court in Ram Narain Bansal (supra) was keenly aware of the provision of law, which provided raising an objection about the service of notice in assessment proceedings, in view of section 292BB, so that where not raised before the assessing authority, it could be before appellate forums. This though may not be of much consequence if the said notice, as in the case of return u/s. 139, is a jurisdictional notice. Not so for an assessment u/s. 147, in-as-much as the jurisdiction to assess gets assumed on the issue of the notice u/s. 148(1), and to pass a reassessment order on the service thereof (refer R.K. Upadhyaya (supra)). Section 143(2), in such a case, thus, is only toward provision of providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to states it's case where a return is filed by the assessee, i..e, in response to notice u/s.148(1), which is the ratio of the decision in Ram Narain Bansal (supra); Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. (supra) and K.J. Thomas (supra), by which decisions therefore the issue under re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eesh Kumar Singh v. ITO [2010] 126 ITD 1 (Agra)(TM). He, accordingly, rightly proceeded with the matter, issuing a notice u/s. 142(1). This is precisely what the ld. CIT(A) has held. Not so doing would be to ascribe the AO with prescience, to know that the assesse shall, long after the issue of the notice u/s. 148(1|), and the time provided thereby, file the return, claiming, in the appellate proceedings, to have thus complied with the said notice. Even so, could any meaningful verification be carried out at that time, or even the said furnishing of return operate to extend the time period available under law for the completion of assessment? Is it, one may ask, a coincidence that the said filing, which is without doubt a result of a deliberate action on the part of the assessee, at the fag-end of the period within which the assessment is to be in law completed. The filing of the return by the assessee on 20.3.2013 is mischievous; in fact, an abuse of the process of law. It is, as observed, after the close of the hearing in the assessment proceedings. Sh. Kalia could not, on being asked during hearing about the provision of law under which the said return was filed on 20.3.2013, st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....effect no filing of the return, and no cognizance thereof could be taken. The filing of the return has in any case been found to be, not with a view to discharge his obligation under law to do so, but maliciously so, so as to defeat the process of law, in the present case. 3.7 Considered whichever way, the assessee's legal challenge is without merit, both on facts as well as, and for that reason as well, in law. In fact, the assessment as framed is in u/s. 144, and the Revenue authorities, were in law, under no obligation to accept the 'additional' evidences sought to be furnished by the assessee in the appellate proceedings. An appellate authority, when he so does, converts a s. 144 assessment into a s. 143(3) assessment, which is impermissible, as explained in CIT v. Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 883 (Mad). That aspect of the assessment, which is even otherwise a matter of quantum, is not dwelled upon further. Suffice to say that the assessee, by seeking the consideration of the said evidences at the appellate stage, for which he stood allowed opportunity also in the assessment proceedings, is, as the common saying goes, trying to have his cake and eat it too. 4. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord. The assessee's explanation with regard to Rs. 4 lacs, stating to be received as lease rental of agricultural land, has been accepted by the ld. CIT(A), implying acceptance of the assessee's claim of agricultural income to that extent. The same has, accordingly, been incorporated in the cash flow statement at Rs. 4 lacs (on 15.02.2005), as agricultural income. As regards the claim of cash gift of Rs. 15 lacs received on 03.4.2004 (as per the cash flow statement). The same is stated to be from S. Jagjit Singh, the assessee's father-in-law, on the occasion of the golden jubilee of the assessee's marriage; the assessee's wife being the only daughter of her parents. Sh. Kalia was during hearing asked about the date of the assessee's marriage; the cash gift being stated to be made on the occasion of the golden jublee (50th year) of the assessee's marriage, to no answer, despite seeking time for the same. There is also no evidence of the stated donor, S. Jagjit Singh, owning 21.82 acres of agricultural land, or his income, on record. Why, nobody keeps cash in such a high amount at home, and there is nothing to show of cash being withdrawn from bank on or before 03.04.2004. Rather w....