Case Law Details
Sonal Sunil Jolapure Vs ITO (ITAT Panaji)
The appeal concerns Assessment Year 2011–12 and arises from reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147. The assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings, addition made under Section 69/68, and also raised an additional ground regarding non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2).
The assessee originally filed a return declaring income of Rs. 1,80,000, which was processed under Section 143(1). Based on search operations conducted under Section 132 in the case of a credit cooperative society, certain cash deposits and term deposit transactions relating to the assessee for Financial Year 2010–11 were identified, which were not disclosed in the return. Consequently, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income had escaped assessment and issued notice under Section 148. The assessee filed a return in response and participated in proceedings through authorised representatives and her father.
The Assessing Officer provided reasons for reopening and issued notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1), seeking explanation for the source of deposits. The society furnished transaction details, and the statement of its branch manager was recorded. The assessee later denied making deposits, disowned earlier submissions made by her authorised representative, and questioned her identity as the person concerned. She sought documents, cross-examination of the witness, and forensic examination of signatures. Cross-examination was offered, but it was requested to be conducted in a related case involving a family member.
The Assessing Officer noted inconsistencies in the assessee’s stand, including denial of earlier submissions and use of different names. It was observed that the assessee was known by two names, and deposits were made under her earlier name. Based on evidence including statements, documents, and failure to explain the source of deposits, the Assessing Officer treated Rs. 26,25,000 as unexplained investment and added interest income, determining total income at Rs. 28,62,072.
The CIT(A) upheld the assessment, rejecting the assessee’s grounds. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that the reassessment notice was invalid, that she was not the same person to whom notice was issued, and that proper procedure was not followed. The Tribunal examined the material and found that the notice under Section 148 was issued based on credible information from search proceedings and that reasons for reopening were properly recorded. It also found that the assessee had participated in proceedings and was provided opportunity to explain.
On the identity issue, the Tribunal noted that evidence including PAN details, KYC records, and statements established that the assessee was known by multiple names, including the name under which deposits were made. The Tribunal also noted that family records and statements supported this conclusion. It rejected the contention that the notice was issued to a different person.
Regarding the claim of non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2), the Tribunal accepted the department’s submission that notice was issued in the same name linked to the assessee. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of explaining the source of deposits and that the Assessing Officer had relied on relevant material and provided due opportunity.
Accordingly, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A), confirmed the validity of reassessment proceedings, and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PANAJI
The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of NFAC/ CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(3)r.w.s147 and u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining (i) validity of reassement proceedings u/sec147 of the Act and(ii)sustaining the addition u/sec68 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer. Further additional grounds of appeal are filed that the A.O has not issued notice u/sec143(2) of the Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2011-12 on 17-10-2011 disclosing a total income of Rs.1,80,000/- and the return of income was processed u/sec143(1) of the Act on 11.5.2012.There was search operations u/sec132 of the Act on VPK Urban Credit Cooperative Society and certain cash transactions/ term deposits information was found in respect of the assessee in the F.Y.2010-11 and the said information was not reflected in the return of income filed for A.Y.2011-12.The Assessing officer (A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. The assessee has filed the return of income on 31.07.2018 in lieu of notice u/sec148 of the Act. Subsequently notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act are issued. In compliance, the Ld.AR of the assesse and assessee father appeared from time to time and submitted the information and details. The assessee was provided reasons recorded for reopening of assessment on 31.08.2018 and also to explain the source of cash deposits in the VPK Urban Credit Cooperative Society in the F.Y.2010-1 1. Further the A.O has issued notice u/sec 133(6) of the Act on the VPK Urban Credit Cooperative Society to provide details of transactions of the assessee. The society has submitted details of cash deposits and interest on term deposits for the F.Y.2010-11. Further a show cause notice was issued on 5.10.2018 to give suitable explanations referred at Para5.7 of the order. The A.O find that instead of submitting the explanations and after providing the reasons for reopening of assessment on 31.08.2018 and the assessee father and the AR of the asssesse were heard on 6.09.2018 in the assessment proceedings. Whereas the assessee filed a letter dated 10.10.2018 along with the vakalatnama of Advocate referred at Para6. 1 of the order denying of making any deposits in the society and also the earlier AR submissions are without her knowledge and requested the earlier AR to withdraw the authorisation given earlier.
3. Subsequently the assessee filed letters requiring the documents filed by earlier counsel and also filed letter seeking directions u/sec 144A of the Act from the Addl CIT Margao and to provide document/ statements received u/sec133(6) from the society. The assessee collected the details and also statement of senior branch manager of the Society recorded by the ITO for the transactions in F.Y.2010-11. Further the specimen signatures of the assessee when signed as Sonal Sunil jain and now reported in KYC as Sonal sunil Jolapure, vouchers and counterfoil note are referred to the director central forensic science laboratory. The assessee was provided cross examination of witness i.e senior manager, who has collected amount of deposits and RD from the assessee residence of branch in F.Y.2010-11 on 24.12.2018 .The assessee counsel and her father requested that the cross examination should be done in the case of his son Shri Sagar Bahubali Jolapure whose case for A.Y.2011-12 is under scrutiny for the same reasons and may be treated as cross examination of miss Sonal Sunil Jolapure (assessee) and Mrs Sangeeta Jolapure(wife). The Assessing officer dealt on the gist of case on his visit to branch of the society on 23.10.2018 at para6.9 of the order. The assessing officer find that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of explaining the source of deposits in F.Y.2010-1 1 in the society, similarly change of stand taken with the earlier AR who appeared and filed details in the proceedings and also the assessee is known as Sonal Sunil Jolapure alias Sonal Bahubali Jolapure and the assessee is known by two names. Finally considering the facts, information, submissions and statement recorded of branch manager of the society came to conclusion that the assessee has failed to explain the source of deposits and made addition of unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act of Rs.26,25,000/-and similarly interest on deposits of Rs.57,072/- and assessed the total income of Rs.28,62,072/- u/sec143(3) r.w.s147of the Act dated 3012-2018
4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
5. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, Ld. AR submitted that CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer on the validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. AR contentions are that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was not initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the assessee was not the same person on whom the notice was issued. Whereas the Assessing Officer has considered the facts and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of search operations u/s 132 of the Act. VPK urban Credit Cooperative Society were certain transactions of cash and term deposits were found in respect of the assessee for F.Y. 2010-11 and were not reflected in the assessee return of income. The Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and in compliance the Ld. AR of the assessee and father of the assessee appears from time to time and submitted the information. The assessee was provided reasons for reopening of the assessment and to explain the sources of cash deposits. The assessee was issued show cause notice and the assessee’s father and Ld.AR attended the proceeding and explained the availability of funds. Subsequently, the assessee contentions are that the assessee has not given any power of attorney to the assessee’s AR and the submission made by the AR are without knowledge of the assessee. The contentions raised that the assessee is not the same person on whom the notice was issued. Further the statement of the senior manager of VPK urban Credit Cooperative Society was recorded. Where the assessee specimen signature in the society is signed as Sonal Sunil jain and whereas it is written in KYC as Sonal Sunil Jolapura. Further the assessee was provided cross-examination of the senior manager who has collected deposits from assessee residence in FY 2010-11. The assessee counsel and her father requested that the cross examination should be done in the case of his son Shri Sagar bahubali jolapure whose case for AY 2011-12 is also scrutinized for the same reasons and the same may be treated in respect of Sonal Jolapura(daughter) and SangeetaJolapura (wife) Therefore, the facts mentioned that the assessee is known as Sonal Sunil Jolapura alias sonal Bahubali Jolapure and by two names and further the assessee has failed to explain the source of deposits.
6. The additional grounds raised by the assessee pertains to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act where the department substantiated that notice was issued on the same name. As per the submissions of the department in respect of CD and the statement recorded in the CD along with the names of family members where the father name is Sagar jain and also the family is known as jains. Whereas the PAN No. referred in the CD pertains to the assessee and now the assessee state that the Sonal Sunil Jain is not the same person. The assessee also filed the copy of passport of the assessee’s father as per the passport details the assessee’s father is also known as Bahubali Sukumar alias Sunil Sukumar whereas the passport of the assessee was not provided and as per the aadhar card, the assessee name is Sonal Sunil Jolapura and similarly, PAN No. is also Sonal Sunil Jolapurai and it is clear that the assessee is known as Sonal Sunil Jain. Further the list of documents produced in the course of hearing of both the parties appeared that the deposits are made in the old name of the assessee. The ld. AR contentions are that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued without recording the reasons. whereas the department has substantiated with evidence that the reasons were properly recorded and the revenue has substantiated voluminous information that the reasons are recorded prior to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and also in respect of assessee’s name as Sonal Sunil Jain. It was also submitted that the assessee and Sonal Sunil Jolapure on whose name notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and whose name deposits are there belong to different persons, but prima facie the statement was recorded in respect of the society manager and it was mentioned that the assessee identity till 2014 was Jain and the manager also confirms that the surname Jolapura has come into existence after collecting KYC documents of the family. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee identification details and the notice issued are on the same person. We therefore considering the facts, circumstances and evidences do not find merits in the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and we are inclined to uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the assessee
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.04.2026.
Author Bio
