CIT Vs Anshuman Singh (ITAT Lucknow)
Lucknow Tribunal examined whether CIT(A) was justified in quashing reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s.144/144B. AO had reopened assessment on the ground that Assessee deposited Rs.1,31,63,190 in Bank of Baroda during FY 2016-17, treating it as unexplained. As per assessment order dated 28.03.2022 AO recorded that no information was furnished in response to notices u/s 142(1) & therefore he completed assessment ex-parte u/s 144.
CIT(A) allowed the appeal holding that AO had verified the books, cash book, vouchers & stock statements during original scrutiny, & reopening was merely a change of opinion; further, CIT(A) held that AO had examined the very same cash deposit earlier during demonetisation verification, hence reopening was invalid.
Tribunal found CIT(A)’s order factually incorrect. The assessment order clearly stated that AO received no compliance, whereas CIT(A) wrongly recorded that AO had verified books & supporting evidence. Tribunal held that CIT(A)’s conclusions were based on a misreading of paragraph 3 of the assessment order, where AO had in fact stated that none of the details required by notices u/s 142(1) were furnished.
Tribunal noted that CIT(A)’s entire reasoning—treating reassessment as change of opinion, treating books as already examined, & treating cash deposit as already verified—was unsupported by material on record. CIT(A) created findings that did not exist either in AO’s order or in evidentiary record. As these erroneous assumptions formed the foundation of relief, the appellate order was held perverse.
