Reopening us 147 on the basis of cash deposits in bank invalid as there was no basis to form reason that cash deposits represented income of the assessee – ITAT
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 1128 (2017) (02) ITAT
Assessment Year : 2008-09
Date/Month of Pronouncement: February, 2017
Brief Facts of the Case:
During the relevant assessment year, the assesse had not filed any return of income (ITR) and the case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the basis of an information that the assessee had made cash deposits in his savings bank account.
The assessee was engaged in small scale business of sale / purchase of motor vehicles on commission basis. During the course of proceedings, the assessee was confronted with the fact that there were deposits in his bank account and explanation was sought for the same. However, on non-receipt of the reply, a sum of Rs. 40,49,500/- was added as cash credit under section 68 of the Act and accordingly, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the assessment u/s. 143(3).
Against the Order of the AO, assessee appealed before the CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the sssessee.
Not satisfied with the partial relief granted by the CIT(A), the assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal and argued only the legal grounds alleging that:
Contentions of the Appellant Assessee:
It was stated that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening:
(a) were totally silent on the contents of information available to the AO and
(b) no details whatsoever of any bank a/c were mentioned and
(c) mere cash deposits was treated to be equivalent to income escaping assessment.
It was further contended that reopening u/s 148 was without legal and valid mandatory service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. There is no nexus between the prima facie inference arrived in the reasons recorded and information available with the office of the AO.
The assessee further stated that the information was restricted to cash deposits in bank account but there was no material much less tangible, credible, cogent and relevant material to form a reason to believe that cash deposits represented income of the assessee.
It was also the contention of the assessee that the proceedings initiated were based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion and therefore, the same were without jurisdiction. He further stated that the reasons recorded were highly vague, far-fetched and cannot by any stretch of imagination lead to conclusion of escapement of income and there were merely presumption in nature. He stated that it was a case of mechanical action on the part of the AO as there was non-application of mind much less independent application of mind so as to show that he formed an opinion based on any material that such deposits represented income.
Observations made by the Tribunal:
After going through the reasons recorded, the Tribunal observed that there was no nexus between the prima facie inference arrived in the reasons recorded and information; the information was restricted to cash deposits in bank account but there was no material much less tangible, credible, cogent and relevant material to form a reason to believe that cash deposits represented income of the assessee; that the proceedings initiated were based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion and therefore, the same were without jurisdiction; that the reasons recorded were highly vague, far-fetched and cannot by any stretch of imagination lead to conclusion of escapement of income and there are merely presumption in nature; that it was a case of mechanical action on the part of the AO as there was non-application of mind much less independent application of mind so as to show that he formed an opinion based on any material that such deposits represented income.
The Tribunal opined that the reopening in the case of the assessee was bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
The Tribunal placed reliance on the following judgments
|
Case Law |
Held |
| Amrik Singh vs ITO |
The AO proceeded on the fallacious assumption that the bank deposits constituted undisclosed income, over-looking the fact that the source of the deposits need not necessarily be the income of the assessee. |
| Praveen Kumar Jain v ITO |
The basic requirement for reopening of assessment that the AO must apply his mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee escaped assessment was found to be missing when the AO proceed to reopen the assessment which is in nature of a post mortem exercise after the event of reopening of the assessment. |
| Munni Devi |
there is no nexus between the prima facie inference arrived in the reasons recorded and information; the information was restricted to cash deposits in bank account but there was no material much less tangible, credible, cogent and relevant material to form a reason to believe that cash deposits represented income of the assessee; |
| Bir Bahadur Singh Sijawali |
Cash credits (Bank deposit) – Assessment year 2008-09 – Assessee deposited certain sum in his saving bank account but no return of income was filed by him – Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on ground that there was an escapement of income – Whether where Assessing Officer proceeded on fallacious assumption that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income and overlooked fact that source of deposit need not necessarily be income of assessee, reassessment proceedings “was to be set aside – Held. Yes |
| Amrik Singh vs ITO |
“information cannot form a valid basis for initiating assessment proceedings under section 147 of the LT. Act. As observed in ‘Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali’ (supra), the mere fact that the deposits had been made in the bank account does not indicate that these deposits constitute income which has escaped assessment. 50. Thus, it was a mere suspicion of the AO, that prompted him to initiate assessment proceedings under section 147, which is neither countenanced, nor sustainable in law. Too, the AO proceeded on the fallacious assumption that the bank deposits constituted undisclosed income, over-looking the fact that the source of the deposits need not necessarily be the income of the assessee |
| Parimisetti Setharamamma vs. CIT |
the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax |
Held:
The reassessment was held to be bad in law
Empanelment to act as ICAI exam observers for January 2027 CA Examination. Last date to apply is 20.11.2026 Empanelment of…
No arrest under GST- Major decision taken in 57th Meeting of the GST Council on 8th October 2026 PRESS RELEASE…
A subsequent Apex Court ruling on the substantive issue cannot retrospectively make an act done in compliance of a binding…
Interest payment on mobilisation advance to NHAI not liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194A - ITAT Interest…
Typographical error in turnover declared in ITR was not as a mistake apparent from the record u/s 154 when AO…
Ground taken by assessee that he was not aware of the order cannot be brushed aside so lightly in absence…