TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the following grounds of appeal: "ON VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT: 1.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the re-assessment order us 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act" for short] passed by the Learned Income Tax Officer (Int Tax Ward) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai ["the Ld. AO" for short] is bad in law and void for want of jurisdiction. 1.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned re-assessment u/s 147/148 is bad in law and void also since: i. The entire re-assessment from initiation to completion is completely contrary to the extant law and deserves to be quashed; ii. The Petitioner, a Non-resident assessee, has no taxable income in India and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led to appreciate that: i. Section 69 is not at all applicable in the present case in as much as the Assessee (the Appellant herein) is a non-resident and therefore even to invoke section 69, the first requisite is to satisfy the scope of income as defined u/s 5 of the Act and section 69 cannot be invoked to expand the scope of income for Non-resident: ii. The Appellant had duly explained the availability of funds before the Ld. AO as well as the DRP and therefore the additions as sustained are bad in law; iii. So far as the cash deposits of Rs. 2,00,000/- are concerned the same were sourced out of earlier withdrawals for which due and complete details and evidences were furnished which is not disputed and therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. AO from the departmental data base that the assessee had made investments to purchase immovable property for Rs. 55,03,000/-. Further interest of Rs. 13,138/- had also been received on which TDS had been deducted. In view of this facts the Ld. AO issued a notice u/s. 148 on 16.03.2023 on the ground that there was escapement of income to the tune of Rs. 55,16,138/- for the year under consideration. As the assessee did not response to the notice u/s. 148A(b) dated 16.02.2023, order u/s. 148A(d) was issued on 16.03.2023. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, was also issued on 16.03.2023. Subsequently, in response to notices u/s. 142(1), the assessee and the show cause notice the assessee submitted replies before the Ld. AO explaining the source of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of Reassessment. 6. The assessee has submitted that the entire reassessment was bad in law since as per the draft assessment order, the Ld. AO had held that income alleged to have escaped assessment was Rs. 31,33,620/- and, therefore, the initiation of reassessment was bad in law as more than 3 years' had elapsed and amount in figured was less than 50 lacs. As such under the amended provisions, no notice cold be issued after 3 years. In that regard Ld. AR has placed reliance on a decision of the Pune bench of ITAT in the case of Kalpana Vijay Kadam vs ITO Pune in ITA no. 841/PUN/2025 wherein, the reopening beyond 3 years was held to be bad in law as the escapement of income was less than Rs. 50 lacs. However, it is seen, that the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Savings 1,00,000 By Clg, MUM CLG SEC, ABS 07.11.2015 Canara Bank 0164101053416 Savings 1,00,000 By Clg, MUM CLG SEC, ABS 7.2. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the sources of this entries. However, before the DRP the assessee furnished computation showing sale of gold jewellery as under: SALE CONSIDERATION 3,00,000 DATE OF SALE 15-10-2015 GMS 182 PURCHASE COST 27,862 DATE OF PURCHASE 01-04-1981 FY 1981-1982 100 FY 2015-2016 1081 INDEXED COST 3,01,190 CAPITAL GAIN (1,190) 7.3. Assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- was taken from M/s. India Bulls Balance amount has been financed out of remittances from Dubai due to assessee's employment, gift from mother and sale of old jewellery. 9.1. The above explanation has not been found fault with by the DRP. Section 69 can be invoked if the assessee is unable to offer explanation or the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be not satisfactorily. There is nothing on record filed by the revenue to come to such a conclusion. 9.2. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we are of the view that no addition was called for with regard to Rs. 7 lacs comprising of cheque deposits of Rs. 2 lacs and cash deposits of Rs. 5 lacs for which the assessee has given a plausible explanation. Hence th....