Shri Kulwant Singh, Alwar, Alwar V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Alwar

ITA 841/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9484 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SINGH JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Tangible material; Condonation of delay; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S B, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 841/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI KULWANT SINGH, G-114, APNA GHAR SHALIMAR, TIZARA ROAD, ALWAR. CUKE VS. I.T.O., WARD 1(4), ALWAR. PAN NO.: AEVPS 7104 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI JAI SINGH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 12/12/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/12/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/01/2018 OF LD. CIT (A), ALWAR FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 . 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 99 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION O F DELAY, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR AS WELL AS THE LD DR ON T HE CONDONATION OF DELAY AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFF IDAVIT WHEREIN THE CAUSE ITA 841/JP/2018_ KULWANT SINGH VS ITO 2 OF DELAY HAS BEEN EXPLAINED. IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 18/1/2018, HOWEVER, IN THE MEAN TIME, THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE EXPIRED ON 11/3/2018 AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED FROM SERIOUS AILMENTS OF SPONDYLITIS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDERGOING TREATMENT AT JAIPUR AND DELHI FROM 27/3/2018 ONWARDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PR ODUCED DEATH CERTIFICATE OF HIS BROTHER AS WELL AS MEDICAL RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDERGOING TREATMENT DURING T HE RELEVANT PERIOD FROM THE MONTH OF MARCH TO APRIL 2018. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE SATISFY THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN TH E PERIOD OF LIMITATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 99 DAYS IN FILI NG THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND CONSEQUENT ORDER PA SSED U/S 147 ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,74,000/- U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 BY HOL DING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. 3. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES TO AMEND, ALTER AND MODIFY A NY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. THE APPROPRIATE COST BE AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA 841/JP/2018_ KULWANT SINGH VS ITO 3 5. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF REOPENING. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) ON 05/9/2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,26,290/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDI NGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 03/ 3/2015 BY RECORDING THE REASONS THAT HE HAS RECEIVED THE INFORMATION REGARD ING THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 15,20,500/- IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH STA TE BANK OF PATIALA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO RECORDED IN THE REASO NS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, THE CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS THE INCOME ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE L D AR HAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS RECORDING OF REASON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCO ME AND ALSO DECLARED THE TURNOVER OF MORE THAN 31.00 LACS, THEREFORE, TH E REOPENING IS NOT BASED ON THE REASONS AND APPLICATION OF MIND WHICH H AS DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND FORMATION OF BELIEF B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REOPENING IS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NO SU STAINABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION WITHOUT INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND AND WITHOUT C ONSIDERING THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, PRIMA FACIE THE REASONS ITA 841/JP/2018_ KULWANT SINGH VS ITO 4 RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO DIRECT CON NECTION TO FORM A BELIEF THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSES SMENT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 07/02/2018 IN THE CASE OF NARAIN DUTT SHARMA VS ITO IN ITA NO. 203/JP/2017. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED IN THE REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME, HOWEVER, IT IS BECAUSE O F THE REASON THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE NOT CONTAINED PAN OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT VERIFY THE FACT OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPE NED THE ASSESSMENT BY RECORDING THE REASONS AS UNDER: REASON FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 READ WITH SEC TION 147 IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.2011-12. AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 15,20,500/- IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT HELD WI TH STATE BANK OF PATIALA DURING THE F.Y.2010-11. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INC OME FOR A.Y.2031-12. THEREFORE, I HAVE THE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF RS. 15,20,500/- ITA 841/JP/2018_ KULWANT SINGH VS ITO 5 CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE A. Y.2011-12 AND THUS IT IS A FIT CASE TO INITIATE PROCEEDING WITHIN THE MEANIN G OF SECTION 147 OF INCOME TAX ACT,1951. NOTICE U/S 148 OF INCOME TAX ACT,1961 IS ISSUED ACCORDINGLY. THUS, IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE REASONS RECORDED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEGINS WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12. FU RTHER WHILE FORMING THE BELIEF, AGAIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF RS. 15,20,500/- TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT CHARGEABLE TO TAX, HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THIS STATEMENT OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASONS RECORDED IS THE BASIS FOR FORMATION OF BELIEF IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS RECO RDED THIS FACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND STATED THAT THE RETURN OF INCO ME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH E-FILING ON 05/9/2011 DECLARING TO TAL INCOME OF RS. 2,26,290/-. FURTHER WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED T HE TURNOVER OF MORE THAN RS. 31.00 LACS THEN THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK A CCOUNT WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO A REASON TO BELIEF THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENE D THE ASSESSMENT IN A MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND SO LELY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN THE PAIN TO VERIFY THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AN IDENTICA L ISSUE HAS BEEN ITA 841/JP/2018_ KULWANT SINGH VS ITO 6 CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NARAIN DU TT SHARMA VS ITO (SUPRA) IN PARA 13 TO 19 AS UNDER: 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRSTLY, IT IS NOTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IN EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER SECTION 147 HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 23.03.2014 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E., AY 2007-08. IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, AN ACTION UNDER THE SAID PR OVISIONS CAN BE TAKEN BY REASON OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL NECESSARY FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CON TENTION OF THE REVENUE AT THE TIME OF RECORDING THE REASONS WAS TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE SAME WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE IT SYSTEM. PER CO NTRA, THE ID AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2007-08 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MANUALLY WITH ITO WARD 6(1) JAIPUR VIDE AC KNOWLEDGMENT NO. 2611000925 ON 21.05.2008. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE TH AT THE RETURN OF INCOME SO FILED MANUALLY IS WITH ITO WARD 6(1) WHO IS THE SAME OFFICER WHO HAS SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF T HE ACT AND THEREFORE, REVENUE CANNOT TAKE THE PLEA THAT RETURN WAS FILED WRONGLY BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ANOTHER OFFICER NOT HAVING JURISDICTI ON OVER THE ASSESSEE. THE RELATED CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE RETU RN SO FILED MANUALLY NOT UPLOADED IN THE IT SYSTEM THEREFORE CANNOT BE A CCEPTED MORE SO IN THE CONTEXT OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WHERE T HERE IS FAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING HIS RETURN OF INCOME . 14. INTERESTINGLY, DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE ITO IN HIS REASSESSMENT ORDER STATED CLEARLY IN PARA 5 THA T 'IN THE RETURN OF ITA 841/JP/2018_ KULWANT SINGH VS ITO 7 INCOME FILED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS, YOU HAVE DECL ARED INCOME OF RS 175,510 ON GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS 21,93,870 U/S 44AD. ' IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT FILED IN PUR SUANCE TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BUT THE SAME WAS THE RETURN OF INCOM E WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139 OF THE ACT . IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE REVENUE'S REASONIN G IS CONTRADICTORY AND SELF-DEFEATING WHERE AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148, IT SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND SUBSEQUENTLY, DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147, IT ADMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY UNDER SECTION 139. ON T HIS GROUND ITSELF, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 CANNOT BE SUSTAI NED AND THE SUBJECT PROCEEDINGS ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 15. NOW, COMING TO THE REASONS WHICH HAVE BEEN RECO RDED BY THE ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'AS PER AIR INFORMATION GENERATED FROM THE SYSTEM, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 1057000/- FOR PURCHASE OF UNITS A ND SB ACCOUNT DURING FY 2006-07 RELEVANT FOR A Y 2007-08. SINCE AS PER SYSTEM NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN F ILED FOR A Y 2007-08 THE ABOVE TRANSACTION IS NOT VERIFIABLE. I HAVE, THEREF ORE, REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT ON ACCOUNT OF NOT FILING OF RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE, INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT THEREFORE, IT IS REQUESTED T O ACCORD APPROVAL FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT.' 16. THE REASONS SO RECORDED BY THE ITO REFERS TO IN FORMATION GATHERED FROM AIR DATABASE OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT WHEREBY CERT AIN DATA/INFORMATION REGARDING PURCHASE OF UNITS AND IT S LINKAGE WITH THE ASSESSEE'S SAVING BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 HAS BEEN REPORTED BY THE CONCERNED BANK. AS PER ITO, SA ID INFORMATION IS NOT ITA 841/JP/2018_ KULWANT SINGH VS ITO 8 VERIFIABLE FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS PER THE R EVENUE'S DEPARTMENT IT SYSTEM. THE BASIS OF FORMATION OF BELIEF BY THE ITO THAT THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS THEREFORE THE RECEIPT OF CERTAIN AIR INFORMATION FR OM AN EXTERNAL SOURCE I.E., BANKING INSTITUTION WITH WHICH THE ASSESSEE M AINTAINS HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THIS RE GARD, WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF HARIKISHAN SUNDERLAL VIRMANI VS. DY. CIT (SUPRA ) WHERE IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: ' 5.03......IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT ON THE BASIS O F THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ANOTHER AGENCY, THERE CANNOT BE ANY REASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE INFORMATION AND MATE RIAL RECEIVED FROM OTHER SOURCE, AO IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE MATERI AL ON RECORD IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER IS REQUIRED TO FORM AN INDEPENDENT OPINION THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. WITHOUT FORMING SUCH AN OPINION, SOLELY AND MECHANICALLY, RELYING UPON THE INFORMATI ON RECEIVED FROM OTHER SOURCE, THERE COULD NOT BE ANY REASSESSMENT FOR VER IFICATION.' 17. SIMILAR PROPOSITION HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT-CENTRAL-1 VS. INDO ARAB AIR SERVICES (S UPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 20. KEEPING THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION IN VIEW WHEN THE CASES ON HAND ARE EXAMINED, IT IS SEEN THAT AS FAR AS INDO ARAB IS CO NCERNED WHITE THE AO SET OUT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE ED, HE FAILED TO EXAMINE IF THAT INFORMATION PROVIDED THE VITAI LINK TO FORM THE 'REASON TO BELI EVE' THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE A Y IN QUES TION. WHILE THE AO HAS REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT THE ED GAVE INFORMATION R EGARDING CASH DEPOSITS BEING FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO DID NOT STATE THAT HE EXAMINED THE ITA 841/JP/2018_ KULWANT SINGH VS ITO 9 RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAID AY AND D ETECTED THAT THE SAID CASH DEPOSITS WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE RETURNS. IN FACT, THE AO CONTRADICTED HIMSELF IN THE REASON S RECORDED BY HIM BY NOTICING THE INFORMATION OF THE ED TO THE ABOVE EFFECT AND T HEN STATING THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS FOR THE AY IN QUESTION IT WAS NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE 'HAD NOT DISCLOSED THESE TRANSACTIONS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUN T' FURTHER THE AO REFERS TO THE ED'S INFORMATION THAT MR. CHETAN GUPTA, PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE, FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSITS AS SHOWN I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HOWEVER, THAT BY ITSELF COULD NOT HAVE LED THE AO T O EVEN PRIMA FACIE CONCLUDE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE EXPLANATION OR THE LACK OF IT OF THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT M AY HAVE CERTAIN RELEVANCE AS FAR AS ED IS CONCERNED BUT THAT BY ITSELF DOES NOT PROVIDE THE VITA! LINK FOR CONCLUDING THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT ANY PAR T OF CASH DEPOSITS CONSTITUTED INCOME THAT HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT THER E IS A LONG DISTANCE TO TRAVEL BETWEEN A SUSPICION THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND FORMING REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSME NT. WHITE THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THE AO TO FORM A DEFINITE OPINION BY CO NDUCTING ANY DETAILED INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FR OM ASSESSMENT, IT CERTAINTY DOES REQUIRE HIM TO FORM A PRIMA FACIE OPINION BASE D ON TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH PROVIDES THE NEXUS OR THE LINK TO HAVING REAS ON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT.' 18. IN THE INSTANT CASE, PURSUANT TO RECEIPT OF AIR INFORMATION FROM AN EXTERNAL AGENCY THAT CASH HAS BEEN FOUND DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEE'S SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT, THERE HAS BEEN NO FURTHER EXAMINATION BY THE AO AS TO WHETHER THE CASH SO FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEE 'S BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN REFLECTED OR HAS ANY CONNECTION WITH THE REPOR TED TURNOVER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REAS ON FOR THE SAID ACTION ON PART OF THE AO IS NOT HARD TO FOUND OUT AS THE A O HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME AFT ER LOOKING AT THE DEPARTMENT'S IT SYSTEM AND WITHOUT VERIFYING THE PH YSICAL RECORDS ITA 841/JP/2018_ KULWANT SINGH VS ITO 10 MAINTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH SHOWS THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. WHEN SUCH A CONCLUSION HAS AL READY BEEN REACHED, WHERE IS THE QUESTION OF EXAMINATION OF SUCH INFORM ATION AND ITS LINKAGE WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE, THERE IS A CLEAR CONTRADICTION ON PART OF THE AO TO HOLD THAT ASSESS EE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN WHEN THE RECORDS SO FILED BEFORE US SHOWS, A ND A FACT WHICH REMAIN UNDISPUTED, THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS BE EN FILED EVEN THOUGH MANUALLY AND WHICH HAS BEEN DULY ACKNOWLEDGED. IN T HE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAS THUS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE AIR INFORMATI ON SO RECEIVED WHICH WOULD HAVE PROVIDED THE NEXUS OR THE VITAL LINK TO FORM A PRIMA FACIE OPINION THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN ABSENCE OF NECESSARY N EXUS BETWEEN THE TANGIBLE MATERIAL AND FORMATION OF BELIEF, THE REAS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE INSTANT CASE. 19. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIRED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 147 READ WITH THE P ROVISO HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN THE RESULT, THE R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE HEREBY QUASHED AND SET-ASIDE. IN THE RESULT, GR OUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT MECHA NICALLY WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND AS WELL AS FOLLOWING THE DECI SION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NARAIN DUTT SHARMA VS ITO (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT VALID AND THE SAME IS QUAS HED. ITA 841/JP/2018_ KULWANT SINGH VS ITO 11 8. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESS MENT AND CONSEQUENTIAL REASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT PR OPOSE TO GO INTO THE OTHER GROUNDS REGARDING THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH DECEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 20 TH DECEMBER, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SHRI KULWANT SINGH, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD 1(4), ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 841/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR