TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1081
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 29.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO on the ground of being illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, and not in accordance with the provision of the Act. 2. That the notice dated 10.9.2018 under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward 40(5), Delhi is without jurisdiction, illegal, and void ab initio. Accordingly, the assessment framed pursuant thereto is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in not quashing the assessment order 29.12.2019 passed by ITO, Ward 43(5), Delhi, without any lawful transfer of jurisdiction, and further failing to appreciate the fact that the AO who....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preciating that the higher rate of tax prescribed under section 115BBE, which was introduced subsequently vide The Taxation Law Second Amendment Act, 2016 was not applicable retrospectively to the impugned transactions. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, having business income, filed the original return for AY 2017-18 on 28.12.2017 declaring income of Rs. 6,49,400/- and a revised return on 29.12.2017 declaring income of Rs. 4,99,280/- with Ward 25(1), New Delhi. The assessee, as proprietor of M/s Smart Infosystems, was engaged in the business of trading in computer peripherals and parts and also rendering service assignments on behalf of HCL Services Ltd., TVS Electronics Ltd., and handling prepaid coupon business for tele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee for the same is not acceded to. 4. Ld. AR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) wrongly sustained the addition of Rs. 2,26,54,967/- u/s. 69A of the Act by treating the cash deposits as unexplained money, without appreciating that the entire cash deposits including Rs. 31,06,500/- deposited during the demonetization period were duly sourced from recorded cash withdrawals made by the assessee in the ordinary course of business during the year under consideration. It was further submitted that the CIT(A) erred in not accepting the assessee's submission merely on account of minor clerical or procedural discrepancies, without demonstrating that the source of deposits was not traceable to the assessee's own documented withdrawal. It was furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....settled legal position. 6.1 Further, the Ld. CIT(A) found inconsistencies in the month wise cash summary submitted by the assesses, noting that the closing cash in hand was shown as negative at the end of August 2016 and September, 2016 that most closing balances in the summary did not match the corresponding balance in the cash book, and that the closing cash in hand as per the cash book was Rs. 7,97,607/- while as per summary it was Rs. 47,71,512/-. Accordingly, the cash summary was also rejected,. We note that the alleged negative closing balances for August and September 2016 arise solely due to a computational error in the cash summary reproduced by the CIT(A). In August, 23016, the opening cash balance of Rs. 18,04,775/- together w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disclosed sources. 6.3 Further, Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee had claimed to have withdrawn cash from ICICI Bank, Chennai Branch, whereas the deposits of cash during the demonetization period were mainly made into Andhra Bank, Delhi accounts. The CIT(A) treated this geographic discrepancy as a further ground casting doubt on the assessee explanation. It reveals from records that the ICICI Bank overdraft account is governed / registered with the Chennai Branch, being the address mentioned in the assessee's submissions, however, the account was operated from Delhi branches. The bank statement of the ICIC bank account clearly demonstrates that the cash withdrawals were made at Pitampura Branch and Lawrence Road Branch, Delhi and accord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omplied with this requirement correctly. It is submitted by the Ld. AR that no inference can be drawn from a difference in figures that arise from different accounting perimeters. The CIT(A) has conflated ITD level data (across all accounts of the individual) with firm-level SBN disclosure, which is an error on the face of the record. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we observed that it was the contention of the Ld. AR that in the month of August, 2016 the opening balance was Rs. 18,04,775/- and during this month withdrawals were made for Rs. 56,70,000/- resulted the cash availability of Rs. 74,74,775/- against which the assessee deposited the amount of Rs. 36,90,350/- and the positive cash balance was available, rather than the ....