2018 (6) TMI 1655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee in response to the notice, filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 99,200/-. During the year, assessee had declared salary income only. The reasons for reopening of the assessment have been provided to the assessee. The assessee was asked to explain nature of source of entry of Rs. 14,75,000/- in S.B. account of the assessee. The A.O. noted that assessee has not filed satisfactory explanation regarding cash deposit in Axis Bank, therefore, it was treated as unexplained deposit under section 69A of the I.T. Act and made the addition of Rs. 14,75,000. 3. The assessee challenged the above addition before Ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that assessee is Maulvi for Arabic Religious and Teacher and teaching Arabic in the Masjid.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r A.Y. 2007-08. After examination of information available in ITD system by independent application of mind, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 14,75,000/-for Financial Year 2006-07 relevant to Assessment Year 2007 -08 has escaped assessment with in meaning of sec 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The case for assessment year 2007 -08 is taken up for assessment u/s. 147 of I.Tax Act, 1961." 5.1. He has submitted that mere deposit of the cash in the bank account is not sufficient to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, therefore, reopening of the assessment is bad in law. It was submitted that the issue is covered in favour of assessee by order of ITAT, SMC-Bench in the case of Shri Arvind Yadav vs. ITO, Ward-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee, therefore, such enquiry letter was not valid in eyes of law. Therefore, the assessee was not required to respond to invalid letter of enquiry issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer in the absence of reply of the assessee presumed that cash deposited in the bank account has escaped assessment. The deposit in the bank account per se cannot be income of the assessee. It is mere suspicion of the Assessing Officer based on incorrect fact that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The issue is therefore covered in favour of assessee by order of ITAT SMC Delhi Bench in the case of Tajendra Kumar Ghai (supra). In view of this matter, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s ....