Reassessment Justified as Information Relating to Unexamined Cash Receipts Was Received After Original Assessment’s Conclusion

Case Details: Sanjay Ratra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - [2025] 170 taxmann.com 243 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
• Ms Rutuja N. Pawar & Ms Hetal Laghave, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Akhileshwar Sharma for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee-individual filed his return of income disclosing capital gain income. The said return of income was selected for a scrutiny assessment, and an assessment order under section 143(3) was passed accepting the return of income.

Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a reopening notice upon the assessee based on information received that the assessee had received cash of a certain amount, which was undisclosed. Further, the credit card transaction of a certain amount was also required to be verified. The assessee filed objections to the reopening notice and submitted that the cash receipt was from the sale of the property, and the assessee made his submission on the merits as to why the same could not be added as income in his hands.

The AO rejected the assessee’s submission and issued a reassessment order under section 148. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the issue of alleged cash receipt was not examined during the regular assessment proceedings since the information from AO was received after the conclusion of the assessment proceedings. The assessment proceedings were concluded on 30 November 2018, whereas the information on the alleged cash receipt was received on 21 February 2022.

Furthermore, from the questionnaire issued to examine issues in the regular assessment proceedings, there was no query on credit card expenses or alleged cash receipts. Therefore, neither issue appears to have been examined.

The assessment order further records that the assessment was limited scrutiny assessment only for verification of deduction under Chapter VI. The assessee has not enclosed the submissions made during the assessment proceedings in the present petition, and therefore, the writ petition was rejected.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Trilochanlal Goyal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. Writ Petition No. 13342 of 2018
• Narendra Kumar Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. (2024) 465 ITR 385 (Para) distinguished.

List of Cases Referred to

• Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/464 ITR 430 (Bombay) (para 8)
• Narendra Kumar Shah v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 397/465 ITR 385 (Bombay) (para 9).