TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rinciples of natural justice. 2) The learned C1T(A) erred in not considering the replies filed by the appellant in proper perspective. 3) The learned CIT(A) erred in reproducing the assessment order and written submissions filed by the appellant, without any basis, which exhibits non application of mind. 4) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the cash deposits into the bank, made by the appellant on 10/11/2016 were out of the sale proceeds of landed property and also the fact that the registration of the same was done on 09/11/2016. 5) The learned C1T(A) erred in not considering the fact that the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.7,67,500/- treating it as unexplained money u/s. 69A without any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Rs.9,58,066/- out of cash balance available as on 08.11.2016. However, for balance amount of Rs.7,67,500/-, the AO rejected explanation of the assessee regarding source for cash deposits from 08.11.2016 on the ground that the assessee cannot accept the demonetized currency and thus, opined that the assessee has not proved source for cash deposits to the tune of Rs.7,67,500/- and thus, made addition u/s.69 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, but could not succeeded. The Ld.CIT(A), NFAC for the reasons stated in their appellate order, confirmed the additions made by the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before me. 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....called the 'Act') permits persons to hold, transfer or receive Specified Notes up to the 'appointed date and section 2(a) of the Act, defines 'appointed date' as the 31st December, 2016. Hence, according to him, the amount of specified notes received by the assessee on 9th November, 2016 is a valid note and the transaction is also valid as it is not barred by any law in force. The argument is contrary to the other provisions of The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 for the following reasons. a. The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 came into being from 31st December, 2016 (section 1(2) of the Act) b. Section 13 of the Act clearly states the provisions of Specified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of Ordinance cannot be extended under the Income Tax Act in line with the principle as laid out in the explanation to u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act-1961. 6. I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. As regards, the first objection of the AO on legal tender of Specified Bank Notes on or after 08.11.2016, I find that as per the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Ordinance, 2016, which came into effect from 31.12.2016 appointed date for this purpose means 31.12.2016. Further, as per Sec.5 of said Ordinance, from the appointed date, no person shall, knowingly or voluntarily, hold or transfer or receive any Specified Bank Notes. From the above w....