Appeal partially allowed in favor of assessee, Assessing Officer's additions deemed unjustified. Penalty deleted, jurisdiction confirmed.

The appeal related to the quantum assessment was partly allowed, with the Tribunal finding in favor of the assessee on several disputed additions. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making certain additions to the income. Additionally, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as a substantial part of the addition was deleted. The Tribunal confirmed the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer over the case despite the assessee being a Non-Resident.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 25,23,500/- without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard.
2. Addition of cash deposit of Rs. 21,43,000/- without appreciating the source.
3. Addition of Rs. 3,38,000/- credit entries without proper consideration of submissions.
4. Jurisdictional challenge by the assessee being a Non-Resident.
5. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

1. Addition of Rs. 25,23,500/- without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard:
The assessee argued that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a 77-year-old Non-Resident Indian residing in the USA, and the assessment was initiated without proper service of notice. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not aware of the income tax proceedings due to the non-receipt of notices.

2. Addition of cash deposit of Rs. 21,43,000/- without appreciating the source:
The assessee contended that the cash deposits were from the sale proceeds of immovable property. The Tribunal observed that the sale consideration of Rs. 27,75,200/- was received in cash and deposited in the bank account. The Tribunal found that the delay in depositing the sale proceeds in the bank account was explained by the affidavit of Rameshbhai Ahir, who deposited the cash on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 21,43,000/-.

3. Addition of Rs. 3,38,000/- credit entries without proper consideration of submissions:
The assessee claimed that the amount represented the repayment of a loan from relatives. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide details such as the identity of the person, year of transaction, and timing of the loan. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 3,38,000/- due to the failure to discharge the primary onus of proving the identity and genuineness of the transaction.

4. Jurisdictional challenge by the assessee being a Non-Resident:
The assessee argued that the AO had no jurisdiction over the case as the assessee was a Non-Resident. The Tribunal did not find merit in this argument and confirmed the jurisdiction of the AO.

5. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal considered that the substantial part of the addition had been deleted, leaving only the addition of Rs. 3,38,000/-. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.

Outcome:
The appeal related to the quantum assessment was partly allowed, and the appeal related to the penalty was fully allowed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 27th March 2023.

---