2024 (7) TMI 835

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-2, Bengaluru-3 (DRP) u/s 144C(5) dated 15.12.2023. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of certain addition of cash deposits and unexplained investments. The assessee being non-resident individual transacted in Bitcoins. The grounds of appeal read as under: - 1. The impugned order is bad and erroneous in law. 2. Non-mentioning of the status of the appellant in the order u/s. 148A(d) dated 31/03/2022 and in the draft order u/s. 144C(l) dated 29/03/2023 renders the entire proceedings null and void. 3. When notice u/s. 148A(b) dated 24/03/2022 gave time for response on or before 30/03/2022, it makes the entire proceedings null and void, as the mandate of SEVEN CLEAR DAYS is not given. 4. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e. The assessee filed return and admitted income of Rs. 2.40 Lacs. The same was proposed to be determined at Rs. 41.67 Lacs in draft assessment order dated 29.03.2023. In this order, Ld. AO proposed addition of cash deposit for Rs. 16.63 Lacs, made addition of unexplained investment u/s 69 for Rs. 2.42 Lacs & Rs. 18.55 Lacs respectively and also determined business income of Rs. 1.66 Lacs. 3.2 In the return, the assessee reflected sale of Bitcoins for Rs. 19.05 Lacs and computed business income of Rs. 0.44 Lacs. The opening stock and purchase was quantified at Rs. 2.42 Lacs and Rs. 16.19 Lacs respectively. The Ld. AO extracted the transaction from bank statements in its order and excluded certain transactions and re-worked sale and purch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sing the handler nbkarthi (userid). The list of user handlers / buyers with trade reference Id was also submitted. However, the assessee could not retrieve old trade receipts. Therefore, Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained money u/s 69A. There was another deposit of Rs. 1.63 Lacs which were similar treated. The assessee maintained that these deposits were recorded in bank account and therefore invocation of Sec.69A was not justified. 3.6 The Ld. DRP, vide directions dated 15-12-2023, upheld the action of Ld. AO. These directions were carried out in final assessment order dated 06-01-2024. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. First, we take up the issue of assessment of business....