TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of the assessee was reopened for verifying the investment in property and my attention was invited to copy of reasons placed in PB pg.5. It was submitted that Assessing Officer has initiated the reopening by holding that the asse has made investment in immovable property to the tune of Rs.51,95,000/- whereas the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.10,70,000/- by holding that the assessee could not explain the source of such deposits for making investment in the property and therefore it was submitted that Assessing Officer has not made additions on the basis of which case of the assessee was reopened and has made addition on another basis. It was submitted that the case law of CIT vs. Jet Airways Ltd. 331 ITR 236 is squarely applicable to the facts of the case where it has been held that if the Assessing Officer do not make any addition on an issue on which reopening was initiated and makes addition on some other issue, the assessment order is void ab initio. 4. Arguing on Ground No.12 the ld. AR submitted that assessee had filed return of income on 19.03.2013 and my attention was invited to PB pgs. 1 and 2 where a copy of acknowledgment of return alongwith comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the effect that the assessee had purchased an immovable property of Rs. 30,00,000 or above, therefore, the re-assessment order and the addition made therein or not sustainable in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd., reported in (2011) 331 ITR (236) (Bom.). 12. BECAUSE the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were based on erroneous assumption of non-filing of return of income whereas per material and information available on record the assessee had filed return u's 139 on 19.03.2013, the formation of belief of escapement of income got wholly vitiated and consequently the assessment order dated 19.12.2019 in pursuance of such reason to believe deserved to be held as bed in law." The above grounds have been taken as is submitted by the AR that they are grounds on pure legal issue and go to the very root of the matter. It is submitted that the case law cited by the assessee is not applicable to the fact to the present case due to the following reasons The case was assessed u/s 147/143(3) of the IT Act on the basis of reasons recorded by the A.O. after obtaining prior approval of the prescribed authorities. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the addition on account of un-explained the investment. In my view it is more appropriate to add to income the loan taken us 68 of the Act as unexplained credits appearing in the books of account of appellant. The addition made by Assessing Officer is thus confirmed" The assessee has herself admitted to have taken loan from the purchase of property and has submitted that it is reflected in her books of account as unsecured loan. However, the assessee has failed to show the connection of the loans taken with the purchase and also failed to file documentary evidence regarding the loans taken. The working portion of Section 68 is reproduced as under: Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year and the sex offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. Thus on going through the above provisions of section it may be inferred that the CIT (A) has confirmed the addition of Rs. 10,70,000/- which was not explained by the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3) arises as no return was visible on the system and therefore he held that there has been a failure on the part of assessee to make a return u/s. 139 of the Act and he initiated the reassessment proceedings. Paper book Pg.6 is a list of questions which needs to be filed by AO while initiating reopening of a case. Sl.No. 8 of the questions requires Assessing Officer to answer to a question as to whether provisions of Section 147(a) or 147(b) are applicable. Against reply to this question Section 147(a) has been mentioned and it has also been mentioned that no return has been furnished by the assessee. On the contrary, the fact remains that assessee did file return of income u/s. 139 of the Act on 19.03.2013, a copy of the acknowledgement along with computation of income is placed in paper book pgs. 1 and 2. The date of filing of the return is much before than the date of recording of reasons which is 27.03.2019. The Assessing Officer has noted that PAN was searched in the system and DCR of respective year has also been consulted and he had not found the copy of return filed by assessee. In view of the fact of having filed the return of income by the assessee the finding of the Asse....