9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting limited scrutiny proceedings into full scrutiny without mandatory compliance of guidelines issued by CBDT is illegal and without jurisdiction. 2.2 That notice u/s 143(2) was issued for the purpose of limited scrutiny of verification of cash tax payments and the issue of other cash deposits being not part of reasons for issuing limited scrutiny notice, the impugned Assessment order passed without converting limited scrutiny into regular/full scrutiny by obtaining prior approval of Pr. CIT is not in accordance with mandatory CASS guidelines issued by CBDT. 2.3 That the Assessing Officer having not followed the proper procedure to convert the limited scrutiny proceedings into complete scrutiny proceedings, the Assessment Order is illegal and is liable to be quashed for disregarding the compulsory CBDT Instruction No. 5/2016 3. That the orders passed by the lower authorities are not sustainable on facts and same are bad in law. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to add, alter, amend, forgot any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 2. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the assessee has filed a brief synopsis and reiterated the contents of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payments and the issue of other cash deposits being not part of reasons for issuing limited scrutiny notice, the impugned Assessment order passed without converting limited scrutiny into regular/full scrutiny by obtaining prior approval of Pr. CIT is not in accordance with mandatory CASS guidelines issued by CBDT. 3.3 That the Assessing Officer having not followed the proper procedure to convert the limited scrutiny proceedings into complete scrutiny proceedings, the Assessment Order is illegal and is liable to be quashed for disregarding the compulsory CBDT Instruction No. 5/2016. 4 That the orders passed by the lower authorities are not sustainable on facts and same are bad in law. 2.1 The first ground raised by the Appellant is regarding the impugned addition of Rs. 29,60,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on the alleged ground of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the explanation and documentary evidences furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. 2.2 At the outset, it is submitted that the Appellant is an old lady aged around 72 years and have multiple health issues. Moreover, the Appellant's husband is bed ridde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h presumption regarding available cash being treated as undisclosed income is highly arbitrary and misconceived in the absence of any finding or corroboration. 2.5 In this connection, reference may be made to the following judgments enclosed in the Case Law- Paper Book: a) Jaya Aggarwal vs ITO [2018] 92 taxmann.com 108 (Delhi HC) Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Bank deposit) Assessment year 1998-99 Assessee withdraw certain amount of cash from her bank account Said withdrawal was to buy property for which earnest money in cash was to be paid - As deal could not be fructified, a part of such amount was re-deposited in same bank account - Assessing Officer observed that sum was redeposited after more than 7 months, thus, treated same as unexplained cash credit and addition was made under section 68 Whether explanation given by assessee that deposit was made out of sum withdrawn earlier was not fanciful and sham story and it was perfectly plausible, thus, impugned additions under section 68 was to be deleted - Held, yes b) Om Parkash Nahar vs ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi - Trib.) Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Cash de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d huge interest liability on partnership firm does not enable revenue authorities to consider the cash withdrawn and it deposit to same bank account after a substantial gap of time, as unexplained income u/s 69 A of the Act. Hence, we reach to a conclusion that the AO made addition without any legal and justified reason which was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). Hence, both the grounds of the assessee are being devoid of merits and dismissed. d) Arihant Associates vs ITO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 7 (Raipur Trib.) (20-09-2023] Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Cash deposits) - Assessment year 2017-18 Assessee-firm made cash deposits totalling Rs. 33 lakhs in its bank account during demonetization period and claimed that cash deposits were sourced out of opening cash in hand of Rs. 52.47 lakhs available in its books of account on 1-4-2016 which, in turn, was sourced out of sale proceeds of agricultural land situated at Village 'C' that was sold by assessee at fag end of immediately preceding year and was received in tranches, i.e. over period 25-2-2016 to 4-3-2016 Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim on ground that there was a substantial t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of assessee) f) Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thaker vs ITO [2017] 88 taxmann.com 382 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Bank deposit) Assessment year 2008-09 When assessee had demonstrated that he had withdrawn cash from bank and there was no finding by authorities below that this cash available with assessee was invested or utilized for any other purpose, it was not open to authority to make addition on basis that assessee failed to explain source of deposits [In favour of assessee) 2.6 In light of the above submission, we may request your Honor to kindly delete the impugned addition of Rs. 29,60,000/- as the cash deposits/tax payment are fully supported from the cash withdrawals made by the Appellant. 3.1 The second ground raised by the Appellant is challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 16,10,000/- on account of 3.3 In the light of legal and factual position above, your Honor will appreciate that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction and same is against the mandatory CASS guidelines issued by CBDT. Accordingly, the assessment being illegal and without jurisdiction, same is required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
