9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment to tax. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer had issued a notice u/s 148 on 31.03.2021. In response to said notice u/s 148, the appellant filed the return of income on 03.04.2021 disclosing same income as declared in the original return of income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 20.12.2022 passed u/s 144C(13) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 1,23,98,740/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer brought to tax a sum of Rs. 1,21,80,000/- being the amount of cash deposits in the bank i.e. cash deposits of Rs. 1,20,40,000/- made with Solapur District Co- operative Central Bank bearing Account No.8658 and Rs. 1,40,000/- being the cash deposits in Axis Bank bearing Account No.21429. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the appellant made a cash deposit of Rs. 1,20,40,000/- on 06.04.2013 with Solapur District Co-operative Central Bank. Similarly, the Assessing Officer also found that the appellant made cash deposits with Axis Bank of Rs. 1,40,000/- on 05.04.2013 and 08.04.2023. Then, the Assessing Officer had called upon the appellant to explain the sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sources of money in the bank from which the cash was withdrawn and the reasons for withdrawal of substantial cash from one account and deposit in another account. The appellant had also failed to provide the evidence to prove the sources of the FDs in State Bank of India and Axis Bank as well as the maturity proceeds of which were withdrawn and deposited in the Solapur District Co-operative Central Bank. On receipt of the direction of the DRP, the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 20.12.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act after making addition on account of unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 1,21,40,000/- and Rs. 83.002/-. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 4. Ground of appeal no.1 was not pressed during the course of hearing of appeal, hence dismissed as withdrawn. 5. Ground of appeal no.2 challenges the action of the Assessing Officer in resorting to the provisions of section 144C of the Act. It is contended that the Assessing Officer ought not to have exercised the jurisdiction u/s 144C of the Act raising the following contentions :- (i) Having regard to the plain provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as "eligible assessee". Even otherwise such reading of words "AND" produces an unintelligible or absurd results, as the Parliament never intended that even in a case of Non-Resident, an order u/s 92CA(3) is prerequisite condition. Thus, we do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. 9. Secondly, we shall deal with the next contention of the appellant that it is only from the assessment year 2020-21 that a Non-Resident is made as "eligible assessee", therefore, the Assessing Officer ought not to have exercised the jurisdiction u/s 144C of the Act. Undisputedly a Non-Resident is made eligible assessee by Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 1.4.2020. Even the CBDT Explanatory Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2020 clarifies the amendment took place w.e.f. 1.4.2020, the Explanatory Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2020 is extracted below :- "Amendment in Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Section 144C of the Act provides that in case of certain eligible assessees, viz., foreign companies and any person in whose case transfer pricing adjustments have been made under sub-section (3) of section 92CA of the Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) is required to forward a draft assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was justified in adhering to the provisions prescribed u/s 144C of the Act. Therefore, the contentions of the appellant are being devoid of any merit and dismissed. Thus, we do not find any merits in the contention raised by the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal no.2 stands dismissed. 12. Ground of appeal no.3 challenges the addition of Rs. 1,21,40,000/- being cash deposits in bank account u/s 69A of the Act. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the appellant made the following cash deposits :- (i) Rs. 1,20,40,000/- with Solapur District Co-operative Central Bank. (ii) Rs. 1,40,000/- with Axis Bank. When the appellant was called upon to explain the sources for the said cash deposits, it was explained that the cash deposits were made out of the cash withdrawals from the State Bank of India and Axis Bank in the last preceding two days. It was further submitted that the withdrawals were made out of the money standing credit to his account the said bank out of the maturity proceeds of the FDs. The fact that the appellant had withdrawn the cash from the said bank account is not under dispute. It was further explained that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proach to confirm the addition. The approach adopted by DRP militates against the very object behind enactment of DRP prediction for speedy resolution of disputes and avoid unnecessary litigation. Further, an authority created under statute conferred with process, it has obligation to act as a body living upto expectations which law mandates. As regards to the cash deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- made out of money received from brother, namely, Saber Fakir Shaikh. The material on record clearly indicates that money was withdrawn from his bank account. The affidavit from his brother also affirms this fact. Even during the course of statement recorded from him, he had not denied that the money was given to the appellant. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the explanation filed in support of cash deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Therefore, we reverse the order of the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 1,21,40,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal no.3 stands allowed.
13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
Order pronounced on this 18th day of October, 2023. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
