Annapurna Gupta ORDER
Annapurna Gupta, Member (A)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad (in short referred to as ld.CIT(A)) under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), dated 07.01.2019 pertaining to Asst.Year2010-11.
2. Brief facts relating to the case is that, it had come to the notice of the AO through AIR information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.11.21 lakhs in the Bank of Baroda, Vadam Branch. Accordingly the assesses case was reopened for assessment and necessary notices issued. None attended the hearing nor filed written submissions. The AO accordingly framed assessment u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of material before making an addition of Rs.18,91,000/- to the income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the ld.CIT(A), where he filed additional evidences which were considered by the Ld.CIT(A) in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law, i.e after seeking remand report from the AO. Thereafter the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO in reopening of the assessment, but restricted the addition to theextent of Rs.2,38,000/-. Dissatisfied with this order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before me and has raised the following grounds :
1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the impugned Appellate order passed by the ld.CIT(A) is void and bad in law.
2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the ld.CTT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the AO under section 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.2,38,000/-
3. As is evident from the above, there are two issues which have been raised by the assessee before me, viz. (i) validity of the reopening of the assessment framed under section 147, and (ii) restriction of addition by the AO under section 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.2,38,000/-
4. Dealing with the first issue, as has been pressed for adjudication by the ld.counsel for the assessee regarding assessment framed under section 147 of the Act, before me, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the AO has resorted to reopening of the assessment merely on the basis of the information received by the AO from AIR statement that the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs.11,21,000/-. He submitted that merely on the basis of this information alone, the AO formed belief of escapement of income for assumption of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment of the assessee under section 147 of the Act. The AO has reopened the case of the assessee merely on suspicion that the assessee has deposited the cash from the unexplained sources, however, there is no formation of belief. To this proposition, the ld.AR replied on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Benches in the case of Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali v. I. T.O. MANU/ID/0078/2015 : [2015] 53 taxmann.com366 (ITAT-Delhi). He thus prayed that the assessment order passed by the AO under section 147 and upheld by the ld.CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to the quashed.
5. On the other hand, the ld.DR supported orders of the Revenue authorities.
6. I have heard both the parties; perused the orders of the Revenue authorities below and also the case cited by the ld.AR at bar. I find merit in the contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee that the AO had acted merely on the basis of suspicion based on AIR statement in........