TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi, ("Assessing Officer/AO") and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-43, New Delhi ("CIT-A") has erred in law by ignoring the documents/gift certificates filed by the Appellant in order to detail the Natur of Receipts of Cash and the accumulation of the same. 2. The Ld. AO erred in law and failed to consider that the total Cash Deposit of Rs10,98,000/- is a cumulative amount of the Appellant along with her family members, primarily her minor sons and the total cash deposit does not pertain to her, individually. Further the Ld. CIT-A failed to appreciate the said facts and preferred to pass orders without any valid reasoning to this aspect. 3 The Ld. AO and CIT-A erred in law to ignore that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to appreciate that on the said facts of the Case, provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act could not be invoked and accordingly the Assessment Orders U/s 143(3) dated 24.12.2019 ("assessment orders) are arbitrary in nature and against the natural principles of natural justice. 7. That the Ld. AO also erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D of the Act while determining demand payable by the Appellant without appreciating that since the Appellant could not be held liable for the payment of advance tax for the amount under reference, no interest u/s 234B and 234D could be charged particularly for the reason that special rate of tax has been provided under the Act and in any case charging the interest without recording proper sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f UK and tax resident of the said country as per Laws of United Kingdom of Great Britain. The assessee is practicing Medicine in the field of Gynecology in United Kingdom of Great Britain. During the year under consideration the assessee was deriving income from other sources and capital gains and there was no income from business or profession in India. 5. The case of the assessee was selected through CASS Module of selection for scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] on the basis of "huge foreign remittances in Form 15CA to low tax jurisdiction". The assessee had filed its ITR on 30/07/2017 at income of Rs. 2,62,590/-. Accordingly a notice u/s. 143(2) dated 21.08.2018 was issued to the assessee for 10.09.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....who sustained the addition on the ground that the assessee has not submitted anything substantial to justify the sources of the cash deposited in Federal Bank account and that the gift certificates submitted by the assessee in assessment proceedings do not have any legal sanctity as they have been merely printed on plain papers. 9. The assessee further grieved is now before us. 10. The learned AR of the assessee vehemently argued that the assessee is an established doctor in England and has substantial source of income in England. It is argued that the assessee's only source of income in India is Interest Income and Capital Gains hence no income can be ascribed to her in India as unexplained income. It was argued that the gifts of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the assessee is a doctor and a resident of United Kingdom and regularly comes to India to visit her family. Her father, mother and brother and sister-in-law are also doctors of repute in India and having substantial income which is reflected in their return of income. With respect to the deposit in India in the Federal Bank, the assessee has stated that the fund deposited in the bank account were from her parents, brother and sister-in-law given as gift. We also note that the only source of income of assessee in India is income from interest from bank deposits and capital gains. 14. We find that the impugned cash was deposited during the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee has given Rs 1,50,000/-. Likewise, the assessee received Rs 2,25,000/- from her mother. Similarly the brother and sister-in-law gave Rs 3,70,000/- and Rs 1,20,000/- respectively. We note that all the above cash were received in small tranche from the family members over a period of three years which was deposited in Bank during the demonetization period. The persons from whom the funds were received were not outsiders or unknown entities. In such a factual matrix, the action of the AO, sustained by the CIT(A), without making independent enquiries u/s 133(6)/131(1) does not appear to be justified. We also find the case of Dheeraj Thakran vs ITO Ward-1(4) (supra) applies to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In v....