TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1990
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of law & therefore entire proceeding is bad in law and deserves to be quashed, 4. That the competent authority has given sanction under section 151 of income Tax act in mechanical manner without going in to material and without verifying the facts relating income escaping assessment & therefore entire proceeding is bad in law deserves to quashed. 5. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 1079994 on account of credit in bank account. 6. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 852000 on account of cash deposit in bank account. 3. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that in the present case assessee has raised the additional grounds and prayed for admission of the same. The additional grounds raised by the assessee read as under: 1. That The AO has wrongly initiated re assessment proceedings under section 147 of Income Tax Act without any reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and therefore entire proceeding is bad in law and serves to be quashed. 2. That the AO has wrongly issued notice under section 148 of Income Tax which is barred by time limitation prescribed under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....product and live stock amounting to Rs. 4,32,000/-. The same has been considered, but assessee has not justified source of cash deposit i.e. Rs. 11,52,000/- (15,84,000- 4,32,000) with documentary evidences. Further on perusal of the SBI and OBC banks statements of the assessee there were credit entries found as discussed above in para no.2.3 amounting to Rs. 14,79,865/- and Rs. 15,13,285/- respectively aggregating to Rs. 29,93,150/-, in which assessee has not explained the source of the aforesaid deposit entries. In light of these facts, the foregoing provisions of section 69A of Act are clearly attracted in instant case. The undersigned is therefore of considered opinion that above discussed unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 11,52,000/- and credit entries found in OBC and SBI banks of Rs. 29,93,150/- aggregating to Rs. 41,45,150/- is an unexplained money and therefore required to be added to total income of the assessee u/s 69A r. w. s. 115BBE of IT Act, 1961. Since assessee is found owner of unexplained money added supra, therefore penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is proposed to be initiated separately for concealment of income.(Addition u/s 69A for Rs. 41,45,150/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as of the Ld. CIT(A) it is abundantly clear that the reopening was made by the AO for the A.Y 2014-15 for a sum of Rs. 41,45,150/- though it is wrongly mentioned in the order under section 148A(d) that reopening was done for an amount of Rs. 50,90,000/-. In the present case Revenue failed to show before us the basis of arriving at the amount of Rs 50,80,000/- as mentioned in Section 148A(d) order. IN 148A(d) order it is mentioned that there was cash deposit of Rs. 50,90,000/- in Oriental Bank of Commerce. Quite contrary to this in notice under section 148A(b) the AO mentioned Rs. 28,80,000/- were deposited in OBC A/c No. 01662010031460. Further it is mentioned Rs. 22,00,000/- was time deposit in the same bank. However in para 2.3 of the assessment order it is mentioned that Rs. 15,84,000/- were deposited in OBC, HDFC & SBI bank. Further, SBI Bank statement shows unexplained source of credit entries of Rs. 14,79,865/-. Based on deposits made in various bank AO made addition of Rs. 41,45,150/-. Thus it is clear that Revenue best case was that there was escapement of Rs. 41,45,150/-. In our considered opinion, as the escapement of Rs. 41,45,150/- was alleged by Revenue, the lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Abdul Majeed Vs. ITO (2022) 140 taxmann.com 485 wherein it was held as under: 20. Therefore, while passing an order under section 148A of the Act, the authority is required to reach satisfaction to not only that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, but in case where three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the order under section 148A of the Act for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act could be passed if there were no statutory impediment as contained in section 149 sub-section (1)(b) of the Act, referred to hereinabove. 21. The authority, as is apparent, sought to bridge this statutory impediment not on the basis of any material available on record but only with the help of a surmise that the assessee may have some more accounts. Even before this Court, when the reply has been filed by the respondent, no material has been placed to show that at the time when the authority passed order under section 148A of the Act, there was some material on record that the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment amount to or is likely to amount Rs. 50,00,000/- or....