TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that there is a delay of 14 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that, appeal against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 19.05.2025 could not be filed within the prescribed time due to the fact that he fell ill, effected with viral fever and was advised rest from 28.07.2025 to 11.08.2025. As soon as he recovered, he took steps to file appeal on 14.08.2025, which caused delay of 14 days. The assessee filed medical certificate in proof of the same and submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the genuine reasons cited above and therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... along with earlier savings and amount received from family members. The AO, however was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to the AO, the assessee failed to explain the source for the cash deposited with known sources of income. Therefore, the AO passed draft assessment u/s 144C(1) of the Act on 28.02.2024 and communicated to the assessee to file objections if any, before DRP or with the AO. The assessee has not filed any objections before the DRP. The AO passed final assessment order u/s 144C(13) of the Act on 23.04.2024 and determined total income at Rs. 52,80,000/-, by making addition of Rs. 51,51,000/- u/s 69A of the Act towards cash deposited into bank account and also made addition of Rs. 1,29,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment order passed by the AO u/s 144C(3) of the Act is barred by limitation, in view ofthe provisions of section 153(2) of the Act, because, although the assessee is a non-resident, but the provisions of section 144C are not applicable, where there is no reference to TPO u/s 92CA(3) of the Act. Further, the term "eligible assessee" has been amended to include a non-resident by the Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.4.2020 and prior to its amendment, eligible assessee does not include non-resident and therefore, for the impugned assessment year, the assessee cannot be considered as eligible assessee. Since the assessee is not eligible assessee, provisions of section 144C are not applicable, in view of the provisions of section 153(2) and 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and also Memorandum to Finance Act, 2020. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 29 (Delhi). He also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ahmed Buhari Vs. DCIT in WP No.24357/2021 dated 08.09.2023. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. In so far as the first legal ground taken by the assessee, challenging the validity of the assessment order passed by the AO, in light of reassessment notice u/s 148 of the Act, in our considered view, this issue is now sub-judice before various High Courts on the validity of retrospective amendme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion before amendment to section 144 by the Finance Act, 2020, the term eligible assessee has not included non resident assessee. Since the assessee is not an eligible assessee in terms of section 144C(15) of the Act, the AO is required to adhere to the timeline provided u/s 153(2) of the Act without going into provisions of section 144C of the Act as held by the ITAT Lucknow in the case of Shyam Sunder Bhartia Vs. DCIT(IT) (supra), where, it has been held that where the Assessee was not an 'eligible assessee' and no draft order was to be forwarded to him. Therefore also, the requirement of section 144C(12) could not have been complied with. Once this is so, the limitation to pass the assessment order would be one provided under sect....