TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 924
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 4, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 30-06-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 30-03-2015. The assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of addition of cash deposits for Rs. 32,75,333/- as made by Ld. AO in the assessment order. 2. The Ld. AR advanced legal arguments as well as arguments on merits and supported the case of the assessee. It has been argued that the case was reopened beyond four years without alleging any failure on the part of the assessee as mandated under the statute. The Ld. AR also argued that approval of appropriate authority to reopen the case of the assessee was obtained on wrong facts. The L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement to sell and also could not produce the buyer for verification. Finally, the impugned cash deposits were added to assessee's income as income from undisclosed sources. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal against the assessment order. 3.3 During appellate proceedings, the assessee assailed reopening on the ground that as per proviso to s.147, extended period of 6 years is applicable only in a case of a failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts in the return of income. This allegation was required to be made by Ld. AO at the time of recording the reasons while reopening the case of the assessee but the same was not done. Reference was made to various case laws to support the same. The assessee als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e not considered during regular assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3). Therefore, the aforesaid cash deposit remained unexplained. The reasons were recorded on 12-02-2014 and Ld. AO sought approval of appropriate authority to reopen the case of the assessee. In Column No. 7 of the approval form (placed on Page Nos.4 & 5), it has been mentioned by Ld. AO that the provisions of Sec. 147(b) of the Act are applicable to the case of the assessee and the assessment is proposed to be made for the first time. However, the actual fact is that the assessee was already assessed u/s. 143(3) and the case of the assessee was covered under Explanation-2 clause (c) and not under clause (b) as mentioned / stated by Ld. AO in the approval form. The clause (b) i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 ITR 192). In this decision, the Hon'ble Court has held that in order to assume jurisdiction u/s. 147 in a case where assessment has been made u/s. 143(3), certain conditions are required to be satisfied viz. (i) Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and (ii) he must also have reason to believe that such escapement occurred by reason of failure on part of assessee either (a) to make a return of income under section 139 or in response to notice issued under section 142(1) or section 148; or (b) to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that purpose. In case where the assessment has been made u/s. 143(3) and action u/s. 147 is sought to be tak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounds alone. We order so. Consequently, delving into merits of the case has been rendered mere academic in nature. The assessee succeeds on legal grounds. The appeal stand allowed. ITA No.891/Chandi/2025 : Shri Baldev Singh 7. The case of this assessee has been reopened in similar background of facts. This assessee is one of the co-owner in sale of land. The original assessment stood completed u/s. 143(3) on 31-12- 2009 and the case was sought to be reopened beyond four years to examine the source of cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account. Notice u/s. 148 was issued on 12-03-2014. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of cash deposit for Rs. 40 Lacs which has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) by rejecting legal grounds ....