TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 934
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29.02.2016 which was served upon the assessee. The assessee explained that cash of Rs. 18,78,400/- was deposited in his two saving bank accounts on different dates from sale receipts of Popular trees (Agriculture Income) throughout the year. The AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 18,78,400/- u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Ld. Counsel for assessee referred to reasons for issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, copy of which is filed at page 4 of the PB and is reproduced as under: - Reasons for issue of Notice u/s 148 Neel Kant Chaudhary, Chaudhary Nursing Home, Shahpur M. Nagar AY 2012-13 As per AIR information available in this office that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 17,69,000/- in his saving bank account in ING Vysya Bank Ltd. at Muzaffarnagar. To verify the transaction verification letter dated 18.08.2015 was issued to the assessee regarding source of cash deposit in his bank account. The assessee has filed reply dated 07.12.2015 but the assessee neither properly explained the source of cash deposit nor filed the statement of bank account. Fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....No.6701/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2011-2012 Shri Dheeraj Yadav, K1-31, New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. Haryana PIN - 122 001. PAN AAYPY2157N vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-46(5), New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shantanu Jain, Advocate For Revenue : Mr. Sri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 23.12.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 01.01.2021 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, Dated 28.05.2019, for the A.Y. 2011-2012, challenging the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and addition of Rs. 11,07,160/-. 2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties through video conferencing and perused the material on record. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that proceedings under section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was initiated on the basis of information that assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 11,07,160/- with ICICI Bank and also earned commission payment amounting to Rs. 2,533/- from Karvat Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd., in assessment year under appeal and no return have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re than six years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, It is therefore, proposed as per the provisions of section 149(1) (b) read with section 151(3) of the I.T Act, 1961 that approval for initiating action u/s 147 of income tax Act, 1961 may be granted in the case. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has chosen not to file return of income for the year under consideration although the total income of the assessee had exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax as discussed in paragraph 4 above and the assessee was assessable under the Act. In view of the above, the provisions of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In this case, more than four years but not more than six years have elapsed from the' end of the relevant assessment year. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 is being obtained separately from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax /Add./JCIT under the amended provisions of section 151 of the I.T. Act w.e.f. 01.06.2016. Sd/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Arabic in the Masjid. He has prestige in the society and trustworthy in the community. People coming to him for pious purposes, giving money for safe deposit and take back whenever required. The assessee deposited the amount in bank account which was later on withdrawn and returned to them. Assessee gets salary from Waqf Board, Delhi. 4. At the appellate stage, assessee was asked to produce lenders for their statements. The assessee produced some of the persons at the appellate stage. Their statements were recorded in which they have confirmed to have given amounts to the assessee. Ld. CIT(A), however, do not accept the contention of assessee because lenders are not having enough money and that they themselves have bank account, therefore, there were no reason to deposit amount in the bank account of the assessee. Appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. 5. The assessee in the present appeal challenged the reopening of the assessment as well as addition of Rs. 14,75,000/-. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that assessee obtained reasons for reopening of the assessment under RTI Act, 2005, copy of which is filed on record, in which, A.O. has recorded reasons for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndependent mind to the information received from AIR. Since no proceedings were pending before the Assessing Officer when he issued a letter of enquiry to the assessee, 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 147 of the Income Tax Act for the purpose of reopening of the assessment. I accordingly set aside the orders of the authorities below and quash the reopening of the assessment in the matter. Resultantly, the addition made in the reassessment would stand deleted. 8. In the result, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wdi Bazar, Delhi. These facts clearly show that total cash deposited in the Bank Account of the assessee with ICICI Bank Ltd., per se may not be the income of the assessee. The ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Shri Abrar Ahmad Qasimi, Delhi vs., ITO, Ward-46(5), New Delhi (supra), following other decisions of the Tribunal has held that deposits in the bank account per se cannot be the income of the assessee. Thus, it was a mere suspicion of the A.O. based on incorrect facts that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Further, Learned Counsel for the Assessee has filed details of the deposits in ICICI Bank to show that there are cash deposits in ICICI Bank at Rs. 11,49,750/- as against Rs. 11,07,160/- stated by the A.O. in the reasons for reopening of the assessment. Thus, wrong and incorrect facts are also recorded in the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. Thus, A.O. has recorded wrong and non-existing and incorrect facts in the reasons for reopening of the assessment. Thus, the A.O. would not get jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on such wrong facts recorded in the reopening of the assessment. The A.O. has also not applied his mind to the facts of the ....