TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 919
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the additional grounds of appeal raised by appellant before her vide application dated 10/01/2019. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in treating the loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- taken by the appellant as unexplained cash credit when the identity and creditworthiness of the lender was duly proved. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in adding sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- in the assessable income of the appellant on purchase of car when source of investment in car was duly explained by the appellant. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the loan confirmation of Mrs Bhagwati of advancing loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the appellant. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of assessment order passed by AO ward 32(2) when a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d also received one notice under section 147/148 from the ITO, Ward-28(5), New Delhi at Shop No.5, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, Badarpur, New Delhi vide PAN AMPPS3117D. It was argued that the A.O. after considering the submissions of the assessee passed the order accepting the returned income of Rs. 2,04,005/-. It was submitted that the assessee was not aware about the notices issued by the second A.O. i.e., ITO, Ward-32(2) as they were being sent to assessee's brother's address who did not pass-on the message relating to receipt of any notice because of bad relationship with his brother due to some family property dispute. It was argued that there cannot be two assessments by two different A.Os. for the same assessee for the same assessment year. 4.1. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, it was argued that the cash deposited in the bank account was out of sale proceeds of agricultural land which was purchased by the father of the assessee who expired before the sale of the said land. The assessee enclosed copies of Purchase/Sale of the said agricultural land. 4.2. So far as the addition of Rs. 28 lakhs on account of purchase of motor car is conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f purchase motor car is the amount received from Mrs. Bhagwati Devi towards some advance for sale of land which was utilised for purchase of the car. Assessee had already filed the bank statement and copy of the income tax return along with computation of Smt. Bhagwati Devi from whom the assessee has received the advance. He accordingly submitted that both legally and factually the order passed by the A.O. which is upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. 6. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied on the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A). 7. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is a peculiar case of reopening of the assessment on account of cash deposit of Rs. 15,02,250/- in the bank account by two different Assessing Officers for the same assessee for the same assessment year. I find in the instant case, the case of the assessee was reopened by ITO, Ward-28(5), New Delhi on 30.03.2017 by recording the following reasons : 7.1. I find the A.O. completed the assessment on 04.12.2017 accepting the returned income of Rs. 2,04,005/- in the order passed under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is reproduced as unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment in the order under section 147/143(3) in the case of the assessee for the same assessment year for the reason that assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 15,02,250/- in his bank account, therefore, in my opinion it is not permissible by another A.O. to reopen the assessment on the very same issue and pass the order under section 147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. When the PAN was available with the Department and an order had already been passed under section 147/143(3) for the same assessment year for the same reason, therefore, the second order passed by the A.O. dated 07.12.2017 in my opinion does not stand in the eyes of Law unless and until the first order is withdrawn. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the second order passed by the ITO, Ward-32(2) in the instant case does not survive since there cannot be two different assessment orders for the same assessee for the same assessment year with the same PAN by two different A.Os. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. 8. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.09.2021. ============= Document 1 Name & Address of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment as the assessee has not filed Income Tax Return, but deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 15,02,250/- in the bank account. Further, despite being given ample opportunity of being heard or file response, the assessee has failed to submit any written explanation with regard to the cash deposits. 5. Furthermore, in the case of Jyoti Goyal vs ITO (ITA No. 1259/Del/2010), the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi held that: 6. "As regards the other contentions of the assessee that the reopening was done in a mechanical manner without application of mind, we find there is nothing on record to support such a contention. There is a live link between the information which was available with the Assessing Officer and his formation of belief that income has escaped assessment. Sufficiency of such information cannot be gone into while deciding the issue of validity or reopening. The Assessing Officer can also not make enquiries as no proceedings were pending before him for the relevant assessment year. In the above view of the matter, we are in agreement with the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was valid." In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee which has escaped assessment. The statutory notice u/s 148 was accordingly issued on 30.03.2017 after recording the reasons and obtaining prior necessary approval of the Competent Authority and sent through the speed post on the last known address of the assessee. The assessee has not complied with the statutory notices issued on 05.09.2017 and 19.09.2017 although as per Speed Post Tracking System the same were received by him 2. Page 1 of 2 During the course of assessment proceedings, notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to the Bank for providing statements of all the bank accounts held by the assessee with the Bank alongwith the copy of KYC documents. The bank, in compliance to the notice vide letter dated 16.06.2017 has intimated that the assessee is maintaining one SB A/c bearing No. 007005004499 with its Badarpur Branch and provided copy of account statement along with copy of KYC documents. The bank account statement provided by the bank has been carefully perused. As per the said statement the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 15,02,250/- in his bank account on various dates during the FY 2009-10 relevant to the AY 2....