TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o as "the Act") dated 22.04.2022 by the Assessing Officer, NWR-W-53(3) (hereinafter referred to as "ld. AO"). Identical issues are involved in both these appeals, hence, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The first identical issue to be decided in this appeal is challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. For AY 2012-13, no return of income has been filed by the assessee. The ld AO noted that on the basis of information available with the department, the assessee had made cash deposit in the Nainital Bank Ltd of Rs. 25,89,000/-. Since, it was a case where assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ltd. It is not in dispute that the assessee had actually deposited only Rs. 13,39,000/- in cash in the bank account maintained with Nainital Bank Ltd, which fact is also confirmed in para 2 of the assessment order. 4. The ld DR before us vehemently argued that sufficiency of reasons need not be looked into by the ld AO while recording his satisfaction and reasons for reopening the assessment. Though this argument prima facie appear to be attractive, it is to be seen that there should be some basic preliminary material available with the ld AO which has a live link to form a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment in the sum of Rs. 25,89,000/- which is the figure of cash deposit mentioned in the reasons. It is absolutely ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....without examining details of cash deposit had recorded reasons for reopening, impugned reopening notice was to be set aside. From the above ratio decidendi of Hon'ble Bombay High Court it could be seen that in the case before Hon'ble Bombay High Court that assessee had filed the return of income. The ld AR was trying to distinguish the said case by stating that it is factually distinguishable because in the present before us the assessee had not filed the return of income and it is a non filer case. In our considered opinion, even though no return of income has been filed by the assessee still the fact of cash deposits made in the bank account could merely reflect "reason to suspect" and cannot be by any stretch of imagination directly beco....