Reshma Kamal Abichandani Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that order passed u/s. 148A(d) is non-speaking since AO failed to provide adequate counter explanation against reasons furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, assessment u/s. 147 non-est and void ab initio.
Facts- The assessee is a non-resident in India since 1997 residing in Philippines and does not have any income in India and, for that reason, no ITR was filed in India. Notably, the assessee was issued a notice u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 31.03.2022 by the AO. The said notice was ssued since return was not filed by the assessee and there was an information of deposit of Rs.2,15,10,769/- in State Bank of India bank account of assessee and a purchase of immovable property worth Rs.5,51,95,912/- by the assessee.
Conclusion- Held that in the case in hand order passed under clause (d) of section 148A is a non-speaking order. The AO should have justified the said order pointing out why the reopening proceedings against the wife should be continued in spite of the fact that an explanation was given that investments in the property and deposit in the bank account were made by the husband who had been independently assessed. Thus, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed and as a sequel to the same, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The impugned assessment is held to be non est and void ab initio.
