Geetanjali Anil Kankrej Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Death, PAN Mismatch & Ignored Reply- Bank Deposits Already in Books? Tribunal Says ‘Verify First, Tax Later’-—Reassessment Remanded for Complete Recheck
Assessee, engaged in liquor business, filed return declaring income of Rs.12,15,090/-. Reopening was triggered u/s 147 based on information that cash deposits of Rs.97,28,000/- in two Bank of Maharashtra accounts were linked to PAN of Late Smt. Sulochana, former owner of Kishor Wine Shop. AO issued notice u/s 148 but, according to him, Assessee did not respond. AO completed reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B treating the cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE, raising assessed income to Rs.1.09 crore. CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the addition.
Before Tribunal, Assessee argued that a complete online reply with supporting documents was filed on 16.03.2022, showing that after the death of Smt. Sulochana on 14.08.2015, Assessee became legal heir & proprietor of Kishor Wines, and turnover appearing in the impugned bank accounts was fully reflected in her audited books under sale of liquor of Rs.12.54 crore. Tribunal noted that:
- audited 44AB accounts already included both impugned bank accounts
- turnover in books was far higher than Rs.97.28 lakh deposit
- AO himself knew the fact of death, legal heirship & business succession
- assessment for AY 2018-19 under 143(3) had already accepted Kishor Wines as Assessee’s business
- cash deposit details during demonetisation were duly disclosed in return
Tribunal held that substantial information was already available with AO and Assessee had responded online, but AO/CIT(A) failed to examine whether the deposits were already part of recorded turnover. As this factual verification was never done, Tribunal set aside the orders & restored the matter to AO for de novo reassessment. AO shall verify whether impugned bank transactions are already recorded in books & decide afresh after giving due opportunity.
