Case Number: ITA 2877/DEL/2022
Appellant: Ruby Singh, New Delhi
Respondent: DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Result: 2015-16
Case Filed on: 2022-12-08
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2023-09-29
Pronounced on: 2023-09-29
The appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi dated 31.10.2022 for assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20 challenge the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
For the sake of convenience, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is taken as a lead case for adjudication of legal grounds. The appellant has taken a common legal ground challenging the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
Ground No. 1 is general in nature in all captioned appeals, which does not require any specific adjudication.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and completion of assessment under Section 147(143)(3) without jurisdiction. The First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that there was no specific, relevant, reliable, and tangible material on record to form a reason to believe that the income of the appellant for the relevant assessment year had escaped assessment. In view thereof, the proceedings initiated are illegal, untenable, and unsustainable.
The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated this issue by considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, which are quite correct and justified. The case of the appellant was reopened under Section 147 of the Act based on reasons summarized by the Ld. CIT(A) which are self-speaking. The AO had valid reason to believe that an amount minimum to the extent of Rs. 82,96,000/- has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2013-14.
The Sr. DR further submitted that the reopening of the assessment was based on a survey operation under Section 133A of the Act and subsequent investigations. The appellant could not satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposits in her bank account despite being given the opportunity, hence the AO proceeded to initiate the reassessment proceedings.
On careful consideration of the rival submissions, reasons recorded by the AO for initiation of reassessment proceedings, and conclusions drawn by the Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that the AO had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The material considered by the AO was self-speaking and revealing the facts that the assessee had deposited cash to her bank account and had also taken unsecured loans which remained unexplained. The Tribunal upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings and the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits and the unsecured loans received for the purchase of immovable property. Accordingly, the legal grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings for all relevant assessment years were dismissed.
ITA 2877/DEL/2022 – Ruby Singh vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi – AY 2015-16
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform