WHETHER PROVIDING SOME INFORMATION FROM ASSESSEE’S RETURN IS SUFFICIENT TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148?

Respected Members

?

Dive into jurisprudence, watch out today's income tax case law video to get a concise exploration of legal principles and their real-world applications.

YouTube video link for Hindi video:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2LCuCr6VfA

?

YouTube video link for English video:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDaElVLN_m0

?

YouTube shorts video link:?https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tsRo_AVmtX0

?

Short note of today's case law for quick reference:

?

[2024] 461 ITR 113 (Cal)

[IN THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]

?

DINESH KUMAR GOYAL, HUF

v.

INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS (NO. 2)

?

1. For the assessment year 2017-18, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which stated that credible information was received through the insight portal of the Department regarding cash deposits, interest receipts and purchase of debentures by the assessee and that the details were annexed.

?

2. Assessee challenged the notice u/s 148 in writ which was declined and hence assessee filed the intra contra appeal.

?

3. Court held that: there were glaring omissions and more particularly the condition precedent for exercise of the power of reopening the assessment under section 147 was conspicuously absent in the order under section 148A(d) for issue of notice.

?

4. The annexure to the notice under section 148A(b) was an extract of the relevant particulars from the return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18.

?

5. There was no other allegation made against the assessee as regards the alleged escapement of income chargeable to tax.

?

6. The assessee contented that cash deposits are from cash withdrawal from assessee’s bank account and annexed a document in support of the claim.

?

7. Though the order u/s 148A(d) was elaborate, the conclusion was only in one paragraph.

?

8. The A.O had stated that bank statement for the FY 2015-16 to be verified, but the proceedings for FY 2015-16 has already been quashed.

?

9. The A.O. statement that no prudent businessman would withdraw crores of cash from his bank account and again deposit it at various stages was his personal opinion.

?

10. Court held that for purpose of assessment u/s 147 there should be tangible material placed by A.O. to show that there was escapement of Income.

?

11. This being conspicuously absent the reopening is bad in law in present case.