TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 256
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....684/Rjt/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 23.12.2024, arising out of the penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act, vide order dated 01.09.2023 respectively. Since both the appeals have been preferred by the same assessee and are interconnected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there was a delay of 230 days in filing the quantum appeal and a delay of 240 days in filing the penalty appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed applications seeking condonation of the delay, along with affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. Considering the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the reasons st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lained money under section 69A of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the total income was determined at Rs. 57,90,850/- under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act and penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act were also initiated separately. 04. Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed and the order passed by the Assessing Officer was sustain. 05. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that in the present case of the assessee the approval granted by the Ld. PCIT under section 151 of the Income-tax Act for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act was granted in a pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her submitted that the reopening was based merely on information regarding cash deposits of Rs. 57,90,850/- in bank accounts maintained with Axis Bank and IDBI Bank. According to him, the reasons recorded did not establish any live nexus between the information regarding cash deposits and escapement of income chargeable to tax. He pointed out that the IDBI Bank savings account bearing No. 1602104000049407 was jointly held by the assessee's mother, Shri Bhartiben Ramnikbhai, as the first holder and the assessee as the second holder. Similarly, the Axis Bank agricultural cash credit account bearing No. 917030046008143 was held by Shri Talvaniya Ramnikbhai Jerambhai as the first holder and the assessee as the second holder. Thus, the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee. In support, he relied upon the bank statements placed at pages 46-49 of the paper book and the decision in Smt. Rajalakshmi v. ITO, 100 Taxman.com 68 (Bombay). It was also submitted that the deposits were made by the assessee and his family members out of agricultural income. Since agricultural income is exempt from tax under section 10(1) of the Act, there was no income chargeable to tax which could have escaped assessment. The assessee had furnished details of agricultural land held by himself and his parents, which were placed at page 54 to 84 of the paper book. He also furnished a copy of the Kisan Credit Card facility availed by the family to establish the agricultural activities. The Ld. AR further submitted that the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ranting sanction. In the present case, the approval does not demonstrate any such application of mind. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd., 64 taxmann.com 313, upheld the view that sanction granted mechanically by merely recording "Yes, I am satisfied", without proper application of mind, could not sustain the reopening proceedings. Applying the ratio of the said decision to the facts before us, we find that the approval in the present case, being a mere endorsement of "Approved" without recording any satisfaction, suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. Consequently, the sanction granted under section 151 of the Act cannot be sustained in law. We further find that the reasons recorded for reop....