9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C of the Income Tax Act read with directions of DRP without assuming jurisdiction as per the Law. Ground No 2: The order passed us.144C consequent to directions of DRP is submitted to be bad in law and without jurisdiction in as much as that the assessee is not an eligible assessee for assessment year under consideration in as much as that non-resident as eligible assessee has been substituted in section 144C with effect from 01/04/2020 being not applicable to A.Y. 2018-19. Ground No.3: The learned DRP has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant for the order u/s, 144C(1) being without jurisdiction, Invalid and void ab initio in as much as that the re-assessment proceeding have been initiated by the Jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has erred in law and on races in upholding the additions of Rs. 2,28,14,293 u/s. 69A ignoring the credible explanation by the appellant discharging the burden of proving the nature and source or investments rendering the additions to be erroneous. Ground No.8: He has erred in law and on facts in applying provisions of section 115BBE to the facts of the assessee in as much as that the deposits in the banks have been satisfactorily explained with evidence. Ground No.9: On the facts of the appellant no such additions of Rs. 2,28,14,293 u/s. 69A read with section 116BBE ought to have been made. Ground No.10: He has erred in law and on facts in levying interest u/s. 234-A of Rs. 80,89,928, u/s. 234-B of Rs. 1,23,10,760 and u/s. 234-F of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has taken additional ground but since the ld. A.R. is directly going on merits of the case, we are not adjudicating the additional grounds at this juncture. 3.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that the evidences related to time deposits (other than time deposits made through renewal of another time deposits), statement of reportable account u/s. 285BA(1) was submitted before the authorities. The ld. A.R. submitted that the remand reports dated 31-11-2023 and 21- 12-2023 reproduced in the order of the DRP categorically mentions in the remark column that these FD details have been explained by the assessee. In fact after perusal of the said remand reports, the Assessing Officer has categorically mentioned that the said details were verified from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and debit entries in his NRE/NRI held by SBI and HDFC bank. From the remark column thereon it can be seen that only one entry of 63,133/- was not explained but the rest of the entries and the transactions were totally explained and verified by the Assessing Officer. It can be seen in para 4 of the said remand report at page 39 of the DRP's direction. Once, the assessee has submitted all the credit entries along with debit entries and also that of the submission of employment verification letter, doubting the genuinely of the said documents without any basis is not justifiable on the part of the Assessing Officer as well as by the DRP. Thus, the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) except the entry of 63,133/- should not have made addition u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
