AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent authority, against the principle of natural justice and various other reasons or and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence the same may kindly be quashed. 1.2 The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case order in passing the Ex-party order u/s 144 rws 147 without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in gross breach of law and are bad in law, invalid, illegal and on facts of the case, and hence the same may kindly be quashed and the resultant addition may kindly be deleted in full. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the Ex-party order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and on wrong stands are in gross breach of law and are bad in law, invalid, illegal and on facts of the case, and hence the same may kindly be quashed and the resultant addition may kindly be deleted in full. 3.1 Rs. 19,81,560/- : The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,81,560/- made by the ld. AO on account of purchase of LIC in cash as allege....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee. Further verification reveals that the assessee has declared income of Rs. 2,04,420/- under the head income from business and has claimed deduction of Rs. 19,000/- only u/s 80C of the Act. As such the investment made by the assessee in purchase of aforesaid policies remained unexplained and deserves to be added u/s 69 of the Act. Thus, the case was reopened and notice under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 20.09.2020 and served electronically to the assessee. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 in response to this notice on 18.10.2019. A notice under section 143(2) read with section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 was issued and served electronically to the assessee on 23.09.2020 requesting clarification on certain issues which the assessee did not respond. Thereafter notices under section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 04.02.2021 and 02.09.2021 were issued along with a detailed questionnaire calling for the requisite documents in respect of source of huge investment in cash amounting to Rs. 19,81,560/-. However, the assessee has not filed any details called for. The AO, therefore, completed the assessment by treating the amount of Rs. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the approval was in photocopy and not in original or there was no original letter or documents of approval. Further the name of the assessee was at Sr. 46 out of 56 assessee's and even there was no tick on the name of the assessee in the approval list, which creates a doubt that the approval has been received before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act as the approval letter lying on the file after issuance of the notice u/s 148 or not before or attached with the notice u/s 148 and may reach in the office of the AO after 31.03.2016. Thus, in our view, approval u/s 151 cannot be given of all the 56 assessee's in a single documents, as all assessee's are the independent and separate also the reason recorded are different in each case and it is not possible that there shall be same reasons. Looking to these facts and record it is also held that the procedures and way of approval and satisfaction is not proper. Here AO initiated proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148 on basis of information furnished and CIT gave approval without applying his mind in slipshod manner. As approval/sanction given by CIT was without recording his own independent satisfaction as noted above, therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of affidavit should be accepted as truth unless rebutted. Because these affidavits have not been rebutted by lower authority by bring any contrary evidence or without examining. It is very settled legal position that in the cases where affidavit has been filed yet the contents thereof have not been rebutted by the AO/authority, the facts mentioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the Income Tax authorities. Kindly refer Mehta Pareek& Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), ITO v. Dr. Tejgopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jp) Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD)., CIT v/s Lunard Dimond Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del). Recently in CIT v/s Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd 239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212(Raj.)- It has been held that contents of affidavit could not be treated as of a lesser importance than the statement given by the creditor before the AO. Recently this Honble ITAT in the case of Narayani Bai Dangi v/s ITO Ward 2(1), Udaipur in ITA No.22/Jodh/2022 dt.13.10.2023 it has been held that we respectfully relied on the order Mehta Parikh & Co, (supra). The revenue has not acted in proper manner to verify the nature of land and had not confronted the affidavit filed by assessee. The ld. DR was u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellants. The cash book of the appellants was accepted and the entries therein were not challenged. No further documents or vouchers in relation to those entries were called for, nor was the presence of the deponents of the three affidavits considered necessary by either party. The appellants took it that the affidavits of these parties were enough and neither the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, nor the Income-tax Officer, who was present at the hearing of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, considered it necessary to call for them in order to cross-examine them with reference to the statements made by them in their affidavits. Under these circumstances it was not open to the Revenue to challenge the correctness of the cash book entries or the statements made by those deponents in their affidavits. This being the position, the state of affairs, as it obtained on 12th January, 1946, had got to be appreciated, having regard to those entries in the cash books and the affidavits filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, taking them at their face value. The entries in the cash books disclosed that, taking the number of high denomination notes at 18 on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lt of the assessee and a poor assessee should not be suffered for that rather it may be deemed to be accepted by the ld. CIT(A) and the addition should be deleted. 5. Hence in view of the above facts and circumstances and legal position of law the assessment order may kindly be quashed and the addition so made may also kindly be deleted in full and oblige." The assessee has also submitted compilation of Paper Book in support of its case as under :- S.No. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of Notice u/s 148 dt. 20.09.2019 1 2. Copy of Approval letter of JCIT dt. 01.07.2019 2 3. Copy of reasons recorded u/s 148 3-6 4. Copy of notice u/s 143(2) 7-9 5. Copy of affidavit of the assessee filed to CIT(A) 10-12 6. Copy of balance sheet from AY 2007-08 to 2013-14 13-19 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the revenue authorities. 7. We have heard rival submissions, perused the material on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well as cited before us and we have also gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From perusal of the record, we observed that the A.O. has re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ched with the notice u/s 148 and may reach in the office of the AO after 31.03.2016. Thus, in our view, approval u/s 151 cannot be given of all the 56 assessee's in a single documents, as all assessee's are the independent and separate also the reason recorded are different in each case and it is not possible that there shall be same reasons. Looking to these facts and record it is also held that the procedures and way of approval and satisfaction is not proper. Here AO initiated proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148 on basis of information furnished and CIT gave approval without applying his mind in slipshod manner. As approval/sanction given by CIT was without recording his own independent satisfaction as noted above, therefore the reopening was not sustainable as per above judicial pronouncements and irregularities noted. There were clear irregularities and violation of the provision of Sec. 151 of the Act and very foundation of the issuance of the notice u/s 148 was not as per law. Then in that eventuality, we are of the view that the issuance notice 148 of the Act and all the consequent proceedings and assessment order passed was not in accordance with law. The case laws rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary Public that the assessee belongs to a farmer family and earned income from various types of crops cultivated by him in his agricultural land, with the help of his sons (PB pages 10-12). The assessee also earned income from selling milk, vegetables and doing business of selling shoes etc. in a shop nearby Old Bus Stand, Jhunjhunu for the last couple of years. The assessee also filed the balance sheets from AY 2007-08 to 2013-14 (PB pages 13-19).The affidavit was filed before the ld. CIT(A) and the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) without verifying the truthfulness of the contents of the affidavit, or brining on record any contrary evidence, or making any enquiry or directing the AO to make enquiry in respect of what has been stated in the affidavit, confirmed the addition made by the AO. It is settled legal position that in the cases where affidavit has been filed yet the contents thereof have not been rebutted by the AO/Authority, the facts mentioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the Income Tax Authorities. Reference is made Mehta Pareek & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), ITO vs. Dr. Tejgopal Bhatnagar, 20 TW 368 (JP), Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fe namely Smt. Kanak Lata Chhajed before CIT(A), which is produced before us at page 16-17 of paper book. We note in the affidavit she clearly stated that the bank accounts were jointly owned and she had deposited the cash of Rs. 15,59,000/- in these bank accounts, this affidavit has also been remained uncontroverted. It is settled law that the contents of an affidavit should be read correct and full unless not controverted. 8.1 To support his arguments the Ld. AR for the assessee has also drawn our attention to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC) wherein Court has held as that:- " It has to be noted, however, that beyond these calculations of figures, no further scrutiny was made by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of the entries in the cash book of the appellants. The cash book of the appellants was accepted and the entries therein were not challenged. No further documents or vouchers in relation to those entries were called for, nor was the presence of the deponents of the three affidavits considered necessary by either party. The appellants took it th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) are coextensive with that of the adjudicating authority. What the Assessing Authority can do, can also be done by the Commissioner (Appeals).Section 250 (4) empowers the CIT(A) to make further inquiries on its own or to direct the AO to make further inquiry and to report him, which also empower the CIT(A) to direct the production of any document / the examination of witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal. Thus, the legislative intent is quite clear that the CIT(A) should not straight away reject, evidence/s filed before him. 9.1 Considering the facts and circumstances as narrated above and respectfully following the judicial precedents as discussed herein above, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) had not utilized his co-terminus power to make enquiries on his own or to direct the AO to make further inquiry and to report him in respect of the affidavit filed by the assessee, to enable him to come to correct conclusion. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in straight away reject the evidence filed before him. Hence, we s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limitation, without jurisdiction, without approval/satisfaction from the proper or competent authority, against the principle of natural justice and various other reasons, therefore, all the grounds are being adjudicated together. 11. The brief facts of the case are that in this case assessment proceedings were completed under section 147 read with section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 24.09.2021 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 21,63,980/- by making an addition of Rs. 19,81,560/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961 and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Subsequently, penalty order was passed vide order dated 24.02.2022 imposing penalty of Rs. 4,93,570/- on account of concealment of income. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. We have already considered and decided the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1179/JPR/2024 herein above, setting aside the assessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the IT Act, 1961 and deleted the addition made and sustained by the lower authorities. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red by limitation, without jurisdiction, without approval/satisfaction from the proper or competent authority, against the principle of natural justice and various other reasons, therefore, all the grounds are being adjudicated together. 14. The brief facts of the case are that in this case assessment proceedings were completed under section 147 read with section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 24.09.2021 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 21,63,980/- by making an addition of Rs. 19,81,560/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961 and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b). Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) were issued to the appellant on 11.02.2021 and 07.09.2021. Show cause notices u/s 271(1)(b) r.w.s. 274 of the Act were issued and served on 19.11.2021 and 10.12.2021. The appellant did not respond to any of the notices issued to him. Further, the case was referred to the verification unit and letter dated 24.11.2021 was served on the appellant. The appellant remained non compliant to this too. Therefore, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n admitted facts that the assessee is a regular IT assessee from last many years and till regularly filling his ITR . Further when the assessee has come to know he himself engaged the counsel and making the compliance the notices and filling the reply. 2. Technical breach only: Alternatively and without prejudice to our other submission, even assuming some default was there, the same at the best was a merely technical and venial breach of law and the conduct of the assessee has not been shown to be contumacious. No deliberate defiance of law is established. It has been held that by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels v/s State of Orisa 83 ITR 26 (SC). "That in order to impose penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of quasi criminal proceedings and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed, unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. The Supreme Court has further laid down that penalty will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....72B or subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure." From a perusal of the above provisions, we can understand that, notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section 271, no penalty shall be imposed on the person or the assessee as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provision, if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. So it can be understood that penalty cannot be imposed, if the assessee is able to prove that there was reasonable cause for the said failure of not complying with the notice served on them under sub-section (1) of section 142 of the Act. The meaning of reasonable cause has been stated in the case of Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. Vs. CIT and ors. (2002) 253 ITR 745 (Delhi) para 5 & 6, is reproduced below:- "What would constitute reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have its full operation or that the provisions embraced in the non obstante clause will not be an impediment for the operation of the enactment (see Smt Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma v K Devi, AIR 1996 SC 1963) Therefore, in order to bring in application of section 271C in the backdrop of section 273B, absence of reasonable cause, existence of which has to be established by the assessee, is the sine qua non Levy of penalty under section 271C is not automatic Before levying penalty, the concerned officer is required to find out that even if there was any failure referred to in the concerned provision the same was without a reasonable cause. The initial burden is on the assessee to show that there existed reasonable cause which wag the reason for the failure referred to in the concerned provision Thereafter the officer dealing with the matter has to consider whether the explanation offered by the assessee or the person, as the case may be, as regards the reason for failure, was on account of reasonable cause 'Reasonable cause" as applied to human action is that which would constrain a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence It can be described as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder u/s 144 rws 147 without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in gross breach of law and are bad in law, invalid, illegal and on facts of the case, and hence the same may kindly be quashed and the resultant addition may kindly be deleted in full. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the Ex party order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and on wrong stands are in gross breach of law and are bad in law, invalid, illegal and on facts of the case, and hence the same may kindly be quashed and the resultant addition may kindly be deleted in full. 3. The ld. AO has grossly erred inlaw as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A,. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full. 4. That the appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing." 19. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed on 29.04.2021 under ....