TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me in response to notice u/s. 148 and therefore assessment order is void-ab initio. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ITO Ward 1 (3)(3) has erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 when it was actually required to be issued by the Jurisdictional assessing officer i.e. ITO (International Taxation) and therefore assessment order is void-ab initio. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 27,50,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits. 5. It is therefore prayed that assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act may kindly be quashed and/or addition made by assessing officer may please be deleted. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) as recorded by Assessing Officer in para 1 of the assessment order itself. No return of income was filed by assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee was identified as non-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 143(2) was raised before ld CIT(A). The assessee also furnished statement of fact before the ld. CIT(A). In the statement of fact, the assessee stated that he is an NRI. He made various submissions during assessment and furnished all details as called for. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order in a hurry and mentioned the fact which are contradictory. The source of cash deposit were satisfactorily explained in submission dated 19/11/2019. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order mentioned that the assessee has not furnished the details in respect of cash deposit. The additions were made without any reason. Treated the cash deposit as unexplained which were withdrawn from own bank account to meet the emergency requirement for his ailing mother. His mother was living alone in Surat -India with helper. There was no reason to doubt the genuineness of cash deposit. 4. In addition to, the assessee also filed written submission as recoded in para 8.3.1 of order of ld. CIT(A). In the submission, the assessee stated that he has also filed reply before assessing officer on 08/11/2019 and 19/11/2019, which were not considered. The assessee further stated that he is an NRI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in Tax Appeal No. 1235/2018 reported viz; 113 taxmann.com 92 (Delhi). The ld. CIT(A) further held that the cash was withdrawn in 2009 and deposited in 2011-12 and in absence of no relation between the cash withdrawal and cash deposit, the explanation of assessee was not acceptable. On the basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that the assessee has raised several legal and technical objections objecting the validity of reopening under Section 147 and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee has also raised grounds of appeal that notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued. Further that notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward 1(3)(3) and jurisdiction of assessee was with ITO (International Taxation). The notice under section 148 was required to be served by juris....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... All details were furnished to the Assessing officer. All such details are available at page No. 42 of paper book. The bank statement of assessee also shown issuance of demand draft on various dates. Such bank details and withdrawals clearly proved that the assessee has made total withdrawals of R. 35.80 lacs and deposited in NRO account of Rs. 27.50 lacs. The assessee fully substantiated entire deposits of Rs. 27.50 lacs. The lower authorities instead of appreciating the facts in a proper prospective, made addition on whimsical basis without actual appreciation of fact. 8. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the amount was withdrawn somewhere in the beginning of April, 2009 to October, 2009 and was deposited on different dates in April 2011 to February,2012. The assessee failed to substantiate the mute question raised by the lower authorities as to why such cash amount was kept idle for depositing after such a long period. The lower authorities while making addition/confirming, considered all such facts and not accepted the story/explanation furnished by assessee 9. We have cons....