TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the fact that reopening was done to verify the genuineness of a particular transaction which is grossly invalid as also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Manzel Dinesh Kumar Shah [2019] 101 taxmann.com 259 (SC) and Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd và ACIT [2022] 136 taxmann.com 69 (Bom HC). (b) The sanction granted for reopening the assessment u/s. 151 of the Act by Ld. Principal CIT- 33, MUMBAI, is mechanical devoid of any material/ evidence against the assessee and without appreciating that there was no live nexus of the information with the allegation of escapement of income. 3. (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in confirming addition of Rs. 45,50,000/-paid towards purchase of property as unexplained investment and applying section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act without appreciating the evidences in the form of purchase agreement and bank statements were already placed on record and that adequate opportunity of being heard was not granted. 4. All the grounds raised are without prejudice to one another. 5. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or dro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials facts necessary, within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T Act. 1961. 4. In this case a return of income was not filed for the year under consideration and no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made. Accordingly, in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded in paragraph 2 above. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income for the year under consideration but no assessment as stipulated u/s 2(40) of the Act was made and the return of income was only processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. In view of the above, provisions of clause (a) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s. 148 has been obtained separately from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of Section 151 of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ible for us to examine the sufficiency of the reasons. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219, if there are in fact some reasonable grounds for the ITO to believe that there had been any non-disclosure as regards any fact, which could have a material bearing on the question of under-assessment, that would be sufficient to give jurisdiction to the ITO to issue the notice under section 147(a) of the 1961 Act corresponding to section 34(1)(a) of the 1922 Act. Whether these grounds are adequate or not, is not a matter for the High Court to investigate in a petition under article 226 of the Constitution. In other words, the sufficiency of the grounds which induces the ITO to act is not justiciable. It is, of course, open to the assessee to contend that the ITO did not hold the belief that there had been such non-disclosure. In other words, the existence of the belief can be challenged by the assessee but not the sufficiency of the reasons for the belief. From what we have stated above, it is not possible for the assessee, on the facts of the present case, to contend that the ITO did not hold such a belief that there had been non-disclosur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO treated the same as unexplained and made addition of the amount under section 69A. In appeal this addition has been contested. A number of things have been stated. However the basic requirement of submission of sources of investment and its evidence has not been furnished. It has been stated that the addition cannot be made on account of unexplained cash credit. However the basic issue of sources of investment has not been addressed. These technical things are only subsidiary and peripheral in nature and at the most these can be stated to be technical defects in the assessment order which can be cured at this stage also. However in the absence of any evidence and details of sources, the investment remains unexplained and is liable to be deemed to be her income u/s 69B. As such the addition cannot be deleted and the appellant doesn't deserve any relief. As such this ground of appeal is dismissed. 6.4 The seventh Ground of appeal is general in nature and needs no discussion. 7. In result, appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes". 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the asse....