TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 93
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority nor such approval was made available to the assessee. Even if there is one, it appears to be granted mechanically without application of mind and after the reasons were recorded. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the final order of the AO making the addition has no nexus to the reasons recorded in so far as the addition is made on an altogether different reasoning not arising from the reasons recorded for the issue of notice u/s 148. Thus, the reassessment is wrong and bad in law and has to be cancelled. 4. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in setting aside the order to the AO and remanding back the matter back to the AO for making fresh assessment without appreciating that the entire material placed before the CIT(A) was also available with the AO. The CIT(A) should have adjudicated the matter even on merits. 5. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that AO is wrong in invoking provisions of section 69A and making addition of Rs. 2,53,62,253/- as unexplained money etc. section 69A do not apply at all as there is no money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article found in the ownership of assessee. 6. The Id. CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee had maintained two bank accounts with two different PANs having aggregate credits of Rs. 71,41,14,240/- and Rs. 2,53,62,112/- Federal Bank account No. 168002000000698 and 16800100008064 respectively. Out of which, cash of Rs. 8,54,56,700/- had been deposited in Federal Bank account No. 168002000000698 and Rs. 2,53,62,112/- in the Federal Bank account No. 16800100008064. The Ld. AO, observing that the assessee's turnover as per the ITR is Rs. 60,79,15,769/- as against the aggregate credits of Rs. 71,41,14,240/- as per the bank account shown in the ITR and the assessee's failure to explain the said credits in the bank account No. 168002000000698, taxed the sum of Rs. 10,61,98,471/- (difference of Rs. 71,41,14,240/- and Rs. 60,79,15,769/-). Further, the Ld. AO also taxed the credits aggregating to Rs. 2,53,62,112/- in the bank account No. 16800100008064 on the reasoning that this bank account is not disclosed in the ITR and the assessee failed to explain the credits in the said bank account. Besides, certain business expenditure was also disallowed by the Ld. AO. 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the reopening of the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng a speaking order. 10.5 Further, it is seen that the assessing officer has recorded reasons precisely for the undisclosed income of Rs. 8,56,56,700/- was escaped assessment and the case was reopened on the basis of the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization. The same is found mention in the assessment order wherein the assessing officer has made an addition on the basis of difference between the cash deposits/credit entries in the bank account and the total receipts disclosed in the profit and loss account. As such, there is a direct Nexus between the reasons for which the case was reopened and the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 10.6 Further, it may be appreciated that a. It is well settled legal maxim that the reopening proceedings is initiation of reassessment and at the stage of reassessment it is not necessary to prove that the income has escaped assessment and it is merely a prima facie charge against the Appellant as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Limited Vs ITO & Anr. (SC) 236 ITR 34. b. Further, it may be appreciated that information for reopening of the case may....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tled law that where return is processed u/s 143(1), 143(1 the only condition to be satisfied for re-opening is taxable income has escaped assessment and Assessee's plea that no fresh material before the assessing Officer warranting re-opening, is not relevant as held in the judicial pronouncement as under- 1. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. Vs ITO (Mad) 340 ITR 454 2. CITVs Ideal Garden Complex P. Ltd. (Mad) 340 ITR 609 3. ACITVS Maersk Global Service Centre (India) (P) Ltd. (ITAT, Mum) 66 DTR 90 g. It may be appreciated that when there is no discussion on the issue in the assessment order and no details were called for by the Assessing Officer or filed by the assessee on the issue, no finding either positive or negative was arrived at during the course of the original assessment proceedings in such situations and facts of the case there is no question of change of opinion as upheld by the jurisprudence as under- 1. A.L.A. Firm Vs. CIT(Mad) 102 ITR 622 2. Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 247 ITR 818 3. Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. Vs DCIT& Ors. (Mad) 241 ITR 856 4. EMA India Ltd. Vs ACIT(All) 30 DTR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings, the assessee was and to furnish the details along with documentary evidences for the reasons and circumstances under which no compliance was made before the Appellate Authority vide notice dated 21/10/2024 However, the assessee has not submitted any Details with documentary evidence or reasons of noncompliance before the AO. 11.3 Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the AD has rendered appropriate and legally permissible opportunity to the assessee by following the principle of natural justice. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee was rendered opportunity of being heard to reiterate the principle of natural justice. On both occasions, the assessee has failed to avail the opportunity to be heard in sync with principle of natural justice. 11.4 However, in all fairness, the assessee may be given another opportunity of being heard before the AO within the meaning of section 251 (1) (a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 to meet ends of the justice. 11.5 It may be appreciated that the provisions of section 251 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act which deals with powers of the CIT(A), has been amended b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may use all available tools and powers within the meaning of Income Tax Act, 1961 to enforce the compliance or take necessary action as per law. No comment is offered with respect to the correctness and veracity of the claim made by the assessee through documents submitted with respect to the grounds of appeal and statement of facts before the Appellate Authority." 5. Before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative ('AR') vehemently argued the case by contending that the reopening of assessment was not justified because the Ld. AO had not applied his mind at the time of reopening the assessment. According to the Ld. AR, the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO for reopening the assessment as mentioned on page No. 2 and 3 of the assessment order read as under: "I have independently examined the facts of the case as per the information and ITD/ITBA data available with the department and in my view, in the present case there is live link between the material on record and the reasons for belief that undisclosed income of Rs. 8,56,56,700/- has escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which come to my notice subsequently in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it was submitted that the assessee had explained each and every entry to credit to the Saving Bank Account 16800100008064 and the difference between the credits appearing in the bank account No. 168002000000698 and the turnover as per the ITR. Thus, he argued that both additions required to be deleted on merit. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR contended that the AO had recorded reasons for reopening the assessment. He submitted that the Ld. AR had not brought the copy of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment on the record. only the part of reason extracted in the assessment order had been relied upon by the Ld. AR. It is not disputed that the Saving Bank Account 16800100008064 had been disclosed in the ITR; hence, the deposit in the said bank account inferred as unexplained in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment could not be questioned. Non-compliance and non-objecting the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment before the Ld. AO itself proved that the reopening was justified, contended the Ld. CIT-DR. The aggregate credits in other bank account were quite more than what was disclosed in the books of account/turnover. Since, no explanation was e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk accounts as well as turnover disclosed in the ITR, raise more questions than satisfying the queries already raised. In view of the facts of the case in entirety and above-mentioned case laws in this para, we do not see any infirmity in the impugned order dismissing the jurisdictional/ reopening issue as the Ld. AO has sufficient reason to prima-facie infer that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. 9. Here in this case, one important aspect which needs to be kept in mind that the reopening has been done within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, the law contained in proviso to section 147 of the Act will not apply whereby ascribing of failure on part of the assessee by the AO is sine-qua-non to acquire the jurisdiction beyond the period of 4 years. 10. As per the Explanation of Section 147 of the Act, the Ld. AO had all the powers to examine and to make any addition even other than the reasoning recorded for reopening the assessment. Here, part of the deposits in one bank account and entire deposits in the other bank account which not disclosed in the ITR were held unexplained and liable to be taxed in the reasons recorded for reopen....