TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... scrutiny for verification of cash deposits made during the year as well as the demonetization period. Accordingly, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the assessee has already declared Rs. 50 lakhs under PMGKY Scheme and during the assessment for the AY 2016-17, the explanation given by the assessee for the source of cash deposits of Rs. 10 lakhs was not accepted by the AO and brought to tax Rs. 10 lakhs by passing an order u/s. 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2016-17. 3. During the assessment year, the AO found that the assessee has made a cash deposit of Rs. 65,93,500/- both in SBI and KVB savings bank account during the demonetization period and Rs. 67,55,000/- cash deposit during the whole year. The explanation submitted by the assessee has been accepted only to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs income offered under PMGKY Scheme and hence the balance cash deposit of Rs. 17 lakhs has been brough tot tax u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act by passing an order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before the ld.CIT(A), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otherwise whole assessment proceeding would vitiate. Let us explain the situation in a different manner also. Section 139(5) authorizes the assessee to file the return before completion of the assessment order. In the present case. assessment order has been passed on 18.03.2016. Hearing must have been concluded 2-3 days prior to this date because Id. Assessing Officer has to draft the assessment order. On 17th March, assessee filed a revised return without the the Id. Assessing Off icer to take cognizance of such a fact in such a short period of time. This type of step can be taken at the end of an assessee for frustrating the whole assessment machinery. Yes, once a revised return is being filed, certainly its figure can be taken into consideration as propounded in the various decisions cited by the Id. Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, it was only an irregularity and not an illegality. It could have been cured by the Id. 1st Appellate Authority by calling a remand report from the Id. Assessing Off icer after re-determination of the income on the basis of revised return, but to declare the assessment order as a null and void is not in accordance with law. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed return. The only new fact reported is claim of credit of TDS though not offering to tax the corresponding receipt. These facts were intimated to appellant by notice dated 20.10.2025 and asked to offer his comments. However, by his reply dated 30.10.2025, the appellant informed that his appeal may be decided based on the grounds of appeal and the written submissions hitherto filed. In view of above discussion, it is therefore held that since the appellant has not disclosed any new income or source of income or claim of deduction or exemption in the revised return of income, the notice issued u/s 143(2) against the original return was valid one and there was no requirement for again issuing fresh notice u/s 143(2) upon filing of revised return. Appellant's ground of appeal on this issue is dismissed. As regard, the issue of addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- on merit, since the appellant has not filed any submission or placed any argument during the appellate proceedings which could contradict the findings of assessing officer, the observation of assessing officer and addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- is upheld and confirmed. This ground of appeal is also dismissed. It is also to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act in respect of revised ITR filed on 15.06.2018. In support of the same, the ld.AR relied on various judicial precedents like Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Co-ordinate Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Guwahati-Kolkata Bench in the case of Tripura State Electricity Corporation. In respect of the merits, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee had explained the complete source of cash deposits made during the AY 2017-18 in his bank account held at SBI and KVB. Further, the ld.AR also submitted that during the assessment proceedings for the AY 2016-17, the cash balance of Rs. 10,66,000/- has been clearly explained by showing the details of earlier years income in support of the cash deposit during the AY 2017-18. 7. Further, without prejudice to the above arguments, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and is eligible to get the deduction of Rs. 5 lakhs as per the CBDT Instruction No.3/2017 dated 21.02.2017. The deduction of Rs. 5 lakhs has to be given to the assessee as held by the Co-ordinate Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Amarsingh v. ACIT in ITA No.1716/Del/2020 dated 20.09.2022, which ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....return and forms the basis of assessment. However, whether non-issuance of a fresh notice u/s. 143(2) would invalidate the assessment has to be examined in the context of the nature and contents of the revised return. From the records, it is evident that the revised return of income filed on 15.06.2018 did not disclose any fresh source of income, additional claim of deduction, exemption, loss, or any variation in the returned income. The only change made was a claim of TDS credit of Rs. 4,685/-. Even the returned income remained unchanged at Rs. 1,26,000/-. Thus, no substantive alteration was made in the computation of total income which could necessitate a fresh scrutiny process. 12. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon is misplaced. The said decision was rendered in the context of block assessment proceedings and the mandatory nature of notice u/s. 143(2) before framing an assessment. In the present case, notice u/s. 143(2) had admittedly been issued and served. The dispute is only regarding issuance of a second notice after filing of a revised return which did not alter the returned income or the issues under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... material before us to demonstrate that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- added in A.Y.2016-17 represented a source different from the cash balance relied upon by the assessee in the present year. Therefore, we hold that the assessee is entitled to relief of Rs. 10,00,000/- on this account. 17. The assessee has further claimed that he is a senior citizen and is entitled to the benefit flowing from CBDT Instruction No.3/2017 dated 21.02.2017. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Amarsingh v. ACIT (ITA No.1716/Del/2020 dated 20.09.2022), which was subsequently followed by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Gaman Narayanachetty v. ITO (ITA No.2907/Chny/2024). In the said decisions, having regard to the peculiar facts of demonetization-related deposits and the status of the assessee as a senior citizen, reasonable relief was granted while examining availability of cash in hand and household savings. 18. Having regard to the age of the assessee, the surrounding circumstances, the nature of deposits, the past history of returned income and keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the considered vie....