TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 887
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the consent of both the parties. 3. Ground no. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee, it was pointed out, was legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment framed u/s. 147 of the Act. The said grounds read as under: 1. The Ld.C.I.T.(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee without appreciating the facts that the requisite conditions envisaged in section 147 have not been fulfilled resulting into wrong assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment. 2. The Ld.C.l.T. (appeals) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts that objection to reassessment vide letter dtd. 14/10/2017 has not been disposed of by the A.O. 3. He has erred in law and facts in not properly appreciating the written submission made to him as well as the reply letters made during assessment proceedings and duly submitted before him. 4. He has erred in law and facts in not considering the decision of Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Mariyam Ismail Rajwani in ITA No.676/Ahd/2016 relied upon by the assessee. 4. It was pointed out to us that in the present case, on the basis of information a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11. 5. Referring to the same he contended that the A.O's belief of escapement of income rested on the fact of cash deposits found to have been made in the bank account of the assessee amounting to Rs. 57,22,380/- and no return having been filed by the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that this information was not sufficient for the formation of belief of escapement of income and in this regard he drew our attention to the order of the ITAT Ahmedabad Benches in the case of Mariyam Ismail Rajwani In ITA No. 676/Ahd/2016 assessment year 2006-07 dated 09.08.2016 wherein identical reasons recorded of cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee and no return filed were held to be insufficient for the formation of belief of escapement of income. Our attention was drawn to the relevant findings of the ITAT in the said case as under: "In the present case also, there is nothing more than cash deposit of Rs. 12,76,000/- in the bank account to justify the reopening of assessment by holding the belief that income has escaped assessment. A mere cash deposit in the bank account, however, cannot justify such a belief or inference. In this view of the matter, and r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mation of belief of escapement of income. The contention of the assessee therefore regarding the insufficiency of reasons for formation of belief of escapement of income needs to be out rightly rejected. Further the reliance placed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of Mariyam Ismail Rajwani (supra), we find is of no relevance since it is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case the information with the A.O. was of cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee and no return of income filed. The A.O. in that case had not made any enquiry from the assessee seeking explanation of this cash deposits prior to forming belief of escapement of income as in the present case before us. Therefore in the light of these set of facts, the ITAT had held that the information was not sufficient for forming the belief of escapement of income. The ITAT we have noted relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali 68 SOT 197 and on going through the same, we have noted that in the said case, the ITAT had noted that the mere fact of cash deposits in the bank account alone ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Bonanza Portfolio Ltd., that his total income from salary and other sources aggregated only Rs. 1,53,030/-, that the entries in the bank account of the assessee actually related to his employer Mr. Prakash Dilipbhai Mirani who was operating the account. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that to substantiate his contention he had submitted: a)all details of the employer shri Prakash Dilipbhai Mirani was given to the A.O. including PAN No. (b) Copy of the bank account of the assessee, wherein the cash deposits were made, pointing out that the narration in the bank entries revealed the name of his employer Shri Prakash Dilipbhai Mirani, M/s Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. of which his employer was an agent and names of the relatives of Mr. Mirani i.e. Dharmesh Mirani, Bhumika Thakkar, Dashandi Champakbhai, Vishal Bhrambhatt etc (c) the assesse affidavit stating on oath that the above facts of the bank account being operated by his employer. 12.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that his explanation of the bank account being operated by his employer duly evidenced with the narration in the entries in the bank account and his affidavit on oath, there wa....