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.
