TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 852
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TD portal. 3. The assessee objects against the reopening on the ground of absence of sanction of chief CIT as the reopening is beyond four years. 5. The AO erred in reasons recorded that the entire cash deposits of Rs. 11,20,785/- as income of the assessee." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessing Officer was having information that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 11,20,785/- in her savings bank account in Bank of Baroda. In order to verify the information, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee on 20/02/2017 to furnish the source of cash deposit during the relevant financial year. The Assessing Officer recorded that no information was furnished by the assessee. On the basis of AIR information available with the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons that the cash deposited in the bank account is nothing but income of the assessee for AY 2010-11 and as such income chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs. 11,20,785/- has escaped assessment within meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and he is satisfied that case of assessee is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment order dated 28/11/2017 under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has not challenged the validity of reopening under Section 147/148 of the Act. The assessee filed her detailed written submissions. Though, in the written submissions, the assessee submitted that her case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. In response to notice under Section 148, the assessee filed return of income on 14/09/2017. In the notice under Section 148, it is not clear whether notice under Section 148 was issued with the permission of Commissioner or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as per provisions of Section 151 of the Act. The notice under Section 148 was issued after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year so the sanction of Commissioner was required. The assessee stated that "it appears that the same is either not obtained or found not to be on record". The assessee also took objection that the Assessing Officer has not disposed of objection against the reopening. The assessee further stated that there was no case to make ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted of Rs. 12,18,949/- (Rs. 1,10,000/- + Rs. 6,63,023 + 95,926 + Rs. 3,50,000/-). 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee, held that from the details furnished by assessee, cash deposit of Rs. 2,78,585/- on 02/06/2009 cannot be accepted as out of opening cash in hand as there was a cash withdrawal of Rs. 21,000/- on 02/05/2009, which clearly corroborates that the assessee has no opening cash balance on 02/05/2009. Further a cash deposit of Rs. 6.75 lacs on 02/07/2009 and Rs. 85,000/- on 03/07/2009 which are claimed to be out of Rs. 3,44,000/- cash withdrawal on 03/06/2009 and cash gift of Rs. 3.50 lacs from brother in law of assessee. No evidence about the capacity of donor for making such gift is filed. Gift deed is a self-serving document. So far as cash withdrawal of Rs. 3,44,000/-, Rs. 82,000/- on 15/06/2009, Rs. 6.75 lacs on 02/07/2009 and Rs. 85,000/- on 03/07/2009, is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) held that there is a cash withdrawal entry of Rs. 3,500/- on 16/06/2009, thus, only cash deposit of Rs. 82,000/- can be considered to be out of withdrawal of Rs. 3,44,000/- on 03/06/2009. As cash withdrawal of Rs. 3,500/- on 16/06/2009, it can be said that such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 19/11/2008 to 02/06/2009. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has explained the complete withdrawals as well as cash deposits and also furnished cash flow statement for Financial Year 2009-10. 7. The ld AR for the assessee further submits that he has raised additional ground of appeal. The additional grounds of appeal are legal in nature. The additional grounds of appal may be admitted as no new facts are required to be brought on record for adjudication. To substantiate, additional grounds of appeal, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the notice under section 148 was received by the assessee, nowhere from such notice it is not clear that if such notice was issued with the permission of Joint Commissioner or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as mandated under the provisions of Section 151 of the Act. In case of assessee, notice under Section 148 was issued after four years from the end of relevant assessment year, so the sanction of Commissioner of Income Tax is required. From the contents of notice, it appears that, no such sanction was obtained, thus in absence of proper sanction, the reopening under Section 148 is not valid. Since reopening is not valid, therefore, subseq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rces. 10. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I have also deliberated on various case laws relied by ld AR for the assessee. I find that the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal for challenging the validity of reopening under Section 147 on legal as well as on factual ground. On perusal of assessment, I find that the assessee has not filed any objection against the reopening. The ld. AR for the assessee in his submission, submitted that no new facts is to be brought on record for adjudicating the additional grounds of appeal. As I find that the assessee has not raised any ground of appeal while filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) except making reference in her submission. No facts relating to her objection against the validity of reopening or sanction of Joint Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax as required under Section 151 of the Act was raised. Thus, I find that the facts relating to additional grounds of appeal are not emanating from the facts of lower authorities. The Ld. AR also argued that the objection of assessee was not disposed off by the Assessing Officer. I find that ....