TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A.O. u/s 69A. d) Holding that the assessee had not been able to satisfactorily explain the deposit in the bank accounts by the assessee with ICICI bank and in the Punjab national bank. e) Dismissing the grounds taken by the assessee regarding invalidity and illegality of action u/s 147/148 and thereby holding that the A.O. had enough reasonable and actionable information to arrive at a particular decision. f) Dismissing the appeal of the assessee. g) Dismissing the ground No. 4 of the assessee. h) Holding that the assessee had earned income of Rs. 88,000/- from salary." 3. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. A notice sent through Speed post is returned back with the remarks "No such person in the given address". Under these facts, the appeals were taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee. 4. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") which was duly served on the assessee. In response thereto, Ld.AR for the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and was provided copy of the reasons recorded. The reasons for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2,01,617/-. Finally, the Assessing Officer made addition in respect of the salary income of Rs. 88,000/- which the assessee himself had admitted. Hence, the Assessing Officer assessed the income at Rs. 12,04,420/- as against loss of Rs. 10,117/- claimed by the assessee, in his return of income so filed. 5. Aggrieved against this, the assessee is in appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 6. Before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had taken grounds against legality of re-opening as well as he also challenged the addition on merit. Ld.CIT(A) on both accounts, rejected the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved against this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. Ground of appeal Nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(e) are on legality of the action u/s 147 of the Act. As no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, we proceed on the basis of the submissions made by the assessee before the authorities below. 9. Ld. Sr. DR, Sh. Ashok Gautam supported the orders of authorities below. He submitted that there is no illegality in the orders of the authorities below. The law is clear on the issue of re-opening. The Assessing Officer was satisfied after ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....blic exchequer with an in-built idea of fairness to taxpayers CIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 161 Taxman 316 (SC). In determining whether commencement of reassessment proceedings is valid, the court has only to see whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the department opened the ease. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this state. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd v ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC). Green Arts (P) Ltd v ITO (2005) 257 ITR 639 (Delhi. The assessee cannot challenge sufficiency of belief - ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), What is the ultimate result of enquiry is not material for deciding the jurisdiction of the AO to reopen assessment, even if it is found ultimately that there has been no escapement of income - Mahasukhram Madan Lai v CAT (1955) 28 ITR 299 (Pat.). In the present case the specific information "specific to the account number in a particular bank were received, acted upon, further investigated and then sent to the Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer applied his own mind and on the basis of information available on record, not to forget that the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch cash was withdrawn immediately and used in the purchase of goods. Goods thereafter, dispatched to such buyers. In respect of credits in PNB account, similar explanation was offered by the assessee. Ld.CIT(A) rejected the same by observing as under:- "I have considered all facts and circumstances of the case. There is no denying the fact that the appellant was maintaining a bank account' in ICICI Bank Ltd. Darya Ganj ,New Delhi, in which there were cash deposits amounting to Rs. 9,14,800/- and Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, having cash deposits amounting to Rs. 2,01,500/-. It is also a fact that in these accounts the cash had been deposited. It is also a fact that the appellant had not disclosed these accounts to the department nor had he disclosed the business carried on by him outside the books of accounts. The action initiated by the department was not based on some hearsay or mere suspicion. The action taken by the Department was based on concrete information passed on to Investigation Wing and then eventually to the Assessing Officer from Financial Intelligence Unit. The information passed on with respect to deposits in bank account is also not vague it was concret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing Officer, the assessee himself had added the factum of having earned the salary income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in making this addition. 19. We have heard Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has categorically recorded that in the statement oath dated 27.02.2014, the assessee himself that prior to start business, he was working with M/s. Oldy Goldy Computers on a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month. However, in the return of income and the year under consideration, no salary income was disclosed for the period from 01.04.2008 to 28.02.2009. 20. We find that the Assessing Officer did not make any inquiry from the employer of the assessee whether he had actually received the salary. Merely, offer made by the assessee in our considered view, ought not to have been taken as a conclusive evidence of earning salary income by the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of any conclusive evidence that the assessee infact had earned salary from M/s. Oldy Goldy Computers, the Assessing Officer was not justified in taking the addition and making the addition on account of earning of salary income. Moreover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only." 23. Since the facts and the grounds are identical as in ITA No.349/Del/2017 and Ld. Sr. DR adopted the same arguments as in ITA No.349/Del/2017. In ITA No.349/Del/2017, we have rejected the grounds of appeal by observing as under:- 10. "We have heard Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has given a detailed finding in the issue of re-opening by observing as under:- "I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the ease with regard to reopening u/s 147, the additional ground raised by the appellant is a legal one and it does not require any further enquiry or investigation. The additional ground, also goes to the root of the assessment and determination of the tax liability of the appellant. Therefore, the same is being admitted and adjudicated as under:- From the above discussion, it is clear that there are umpteenth number of judicial pronouncements on the issue of reopening of assessment u/s 147. Each set of facts and circumstances present before Assessing Officer a new challenge. There could be similarity and circumstances but there are hardly any circumstances ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the basis of information available on record, not to forget that the appellant has failed to file "his return of income for the relevant assessment year, came to a conclusion that the income of Rs. 9,14,800/- has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer is not suppose to arrive at the final conclusion. He is supposed to reach at a reasonable belief, which a prudent man will arrive at, that the income has escaped assessment. It has to be a prima facie case regarding escapement of income. The Assessing Officer is not passing the final judgement. In the case in hand there is no two opinion that the assessee had bank account in which substantial cash was being deposited from various parts of the country. It is also a fact that the assessee had not disclosed this account to the department and also not filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer has recorded all this in his reasons and then he took the approval of the competent authority as provided in the Act. Everything is in order. The satisfaction and the reason has to be that of Assessing Officer, not of anybody else. In my humble opinion, the Assessing Officer had enough reasonable and ac....