TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal is not attributable to the assessee in any manner whatsoever and moreover there was a sufficient cause for delayed filing of appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the time of hearing, the assessee raised the legal issue that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was merely on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind and therefore the same is invalid and may be quashed. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 28.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 2,50,250/-. During the impugned year, the assessee is running a medical shop of medicine and was deriving income from the business of dealing in medicines. The AO, after receipt of verification report in respect of Smt. Meera Indra for FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13 Income Tax Officer (Intelligence & Investigation), Durgapur, observed that the assessee Shri Utpal Das was beneficiary of the cash deposits of Rs. 70,50,000/- in the bank account of Smt. Mira Indra. The AO noted that Sri Utpal Das was the introducer while opening the bank account of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ank account, the assessee was the introducer of the said bank account which has been observed by the AO on the basis of documents received from the bank. The ld. A.R also referred to the bank statement of the impugned bank which is filed at page no. 70 of PB. The Ld. A.R while referring to the said statement submitted that the cash was deposited on different dates whereas the withdrawals were only made to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- thereby leaving closing balance of Rs. 63,15,836/-. The Ld. A.R contended that the AO has acted merely on the borrowed satisfaction without carrying out any independent verification of the issue. The assessee has no role in the deposits of the said cash which is apparent from the facts that there were deposits only in the bank account of Smt. Mira Indra and withdrawal was only a meagre amount thereby leaving a bank balance of Rs. 63,15,836/- in the said bank account. The Ld. A.R submitted that the AO has failed to establish any live link between the information received and recording of reasons and formation of belief. The Ld. A.R stated that the AO has failed to carry out any mindful enquiry into the issue at the time of recording of reasons and simply ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the total money belonged to Shri Utpal Das and he is the beneficiary of the said money. Therefore, the department has sufficient material to make the addition. The Ld. D.R finally relied on the authorities below. 8. After hearing the rival contentions including the orders of authorities below and the decisions cited before us, the undisputed facts are that the AO received letter from Income Tax Officer (Intelligence & Investigation), Durgapur that there was huge deposits of Rs. 70,50,000/- in the account of Smt. Mira Indra deposited on various dates, beneficiary of which was the assessee who withdrew through cheques from the said bank account. The AO based upon the said letter recorded the reasons u/s 148(2) of the Act a copy of which is available at page no. 53 of PB in para 1. The AO noted the fact of having received letter dated 14.03.2020 from Income Tax Officer (Intelligence & Investigation), Durgapur on 20.03.2020 which stated that the cash deposited in savings bank account of Smt. Mira Indra during the impugned financial year 2011-12. In the second para the AO noted further that from the letter, it was found that Shri Utpal Das, was the direct beneficiary of the said cash ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uge withdrawals of cash of which the assessee was the beneficiary. Therefore, this is the case where the AO has failed to carry out any enquiry before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and re-opened the assessment on borrowed satisfaction which is not permissible under the Act. Moreover, we note that the case was reopened for making the protective addition in the hands of assessee whereas the addition was made on substantive basis. 9. The case of the assessee was simply dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) by referring to notice u/s 148 and the statement of Smt. Mira Indra recorded by her AO. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the case has reopened without any independent application of mind and the reasons recorded failed to demonstrate the live link between the tangible material and the formation of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, then there is no error of tribunal concluding that initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AY in question does not satisfy the requirement of ....