Navinchandra Amaidas Bhikha v. ITO

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Ashish Natvarlal Vashi v. ITO 2021 TaxPub(DT) 2213 (Sur-Trib)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1754 (Srt-Trib) IN THE ITAT SURAT BENCH PAWAN SINGH, J.M. & A. L. SAINI, A.M. Navinchandra Amaidas Bhikha v. ITO ITA No. 50/SRT/2024 8 April, 2024 Appellant by: Mayank A. Ogriwala, CA Respondent by: Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER *A.L. Saini, A.M.* Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (assessment year) 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short the learned Commissioner (Appeals)), Surat, National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short the NFAC), dated 28-11-2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by assessing officer under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dated 15-11-2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as law on the subject, The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in validating reopening of assessment under section 147 even if the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law and without jurisdiction. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming total addition of Rs. 14,50,659 out of which the addition of Rs. 10,59,000 was on account of cash deposit in bank & Rs. 3,91,659 was on account of other credit entry in the bank account as alleged unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. (3) On the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as law on subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in sustaining total addition of Rs. 14,50,659 without considering the maximum peak credit in bank which is against the well settled law on the subject. Your appellant further reserves his right to add, alter or to amend any of the aforesaid grounds at the time of hearing of an appeal and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noted that assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 11,02,500 into bank account held with Dena bank and had earned interest income of Rs. 77,536 from Dena Bank. The assessee had not filed return of income for assessment year (assessment year). 2012-13, therefore, the assessing officer had reason to believe that the income to the tune of Rs. 11,80,036 has escaped the assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 29-3-2019 after recording the reasons. The assessee was required to file return of income for assessment year 2012-13 in response to notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act within 30 days from the date of receiving of the said notice. However, the assessee has not filed return of income in response to notice under section 148 within the time limit prescribed in the said notice. Thereafter, assessing officer has issued five notices of hearing, however, the assessee did not make the compliance. Therefore, assessing officer noted that the assessee has failed to furnish any details relating to business activities undertaken by the assessee, nature of Income earned, details of bank accounts, details of cash deposits made in the bank accounts, sources of cash deposits and details of interest earned with Dena bank. In absence of requisite details/explanation the assessing officer is left with no option but to complete the best judgment assessment on the basis of material evidences gathered during the assessment proceedings. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1754 (Srt-Trib)

IN THE ITAT SURAT BENCH

PAWAN SINGH, J.M. & A. L. SAINI, A.M.

Navinchandra Amaidas Bhikha v. ITO

ITA No. 50/SRT/2024

8 April, 2024

Appellant by: Mayank A. Ogriwala, CA

Respondent by: Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR

ORDER

A.L. Saini, A.M.

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (assessment year) 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short the learned Commissioner (Appeals)), Surat, National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short the NFAC), dated 28-11-2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by assessing officer under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dated 15-11-2019.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as law on the subject, The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in validating reopening of assessment under section 147 even if the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law and without jurisdiction.

(2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming total addition of Rs. 14,50,659 out of which the addition of Rs. 10,59,000 was on account of cash deposit in bank & Rs. 3,91,659 was on account of other credit entry in the bank account as alleged unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.

(3) On the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as law on subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in sustaining total addition of Rs. 14,50,659 without considering the maximum peak credit in bank which is against the well settled law on the subject.

Your appellant further reserves his right to add, alter or to amend any of the aforesaid grounds at the time of hearing of an appeal and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.

3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noted that assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 11,02,500 into bank account held with Dena bank and had earned interest income of Rs. 77,536 from Dena Bank. The assessee had not filed return of income for assessment year (assessment year). 2012-13, therefore, the assessing officer had reason to believe that the income to the tune of Rs. 11,80,036 has escaped the assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 29-3-2019 after recording the reasons. The assessee was required to file return of income for assessment year 2012-13 in response to notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act within 30 days from the date of receiving of the said notice. However, the assessee has not filed return of income in response to notice under section 148 within the time limit prescribed in the said notice. Thereafter, assessing officer has issued five notices of hearing, however, the assessee did not make the compliance. Therefore, assessing officer noted that the assessee has failed to furnish any details relating to business activities undertaken by the assessee, nature of Income earned, details of bank accounts, details of cash deposits made in the bank accounts, sources of cash deposits and details of interest earned with Dena bank. In absence of requisite details/explanation the assessing officer is left with no option but to complete the best judgment assessment on the basis of material evidences gathered during the assessment proceedings.