9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee also produced the return of income of the relatives. As observed that the deposits is not relating to cash deposit and it is related to the maturity proceeds of the fixed deposits. As noted that there is an addition on substantive basis in the hands of Shabbir Kantawala, brother of the assessee and the said Rs. 10,00,000/- is the same amount deposited in the joint bank account held by the assessee. CIT(A) was not correct in upholding the half of the assessment in the hands of assessee u/s. 69A Affidavits, if credible and corroborated by other evidences, can be sufficient to explain the source of cash deposits. Neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has provided concrete reasons or evidences to reject the Affidavits and the explanation provided by the assessee. Mere suspicion or conjecture is not sufficient to sustain an addition u/s 69A - We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the entire addition made u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE in the hands of the assessee by the AO. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) 271F - Proceedings for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) 271F of the Act be dropped. Appeal of assessee is allowed. - Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in both joint bank accounts held in name of 4 family members, as unexplained investment belonging to the appellant only. Both the Ld. Authorities have disregarded the fact that bank accounts are held in jt. names of [a] Appellant herself [b] Mr. Shabbir Kantavala (PAN: ABEPK2532L) [c] late Mr. Yusuf Ahmedali Kantavala (PAN: ABEPK2533M) af Khatija Kantavala, who are separate assessable entities. Shabbir Kantavala and Late Yusuf Kantavala were assessed to I. Tax Act for more than 50 years. 1.2 Ld. CIT[A] has not appreciated the fact that, Ld. AO is unjustified and erred in law in making the addition for other credits of Rs. 5,91,006/- u/s 69A in Abad Mer. Coop Bank, just by summation of credit entries without considering the nature of credit shown in bank passbook that credits of Rs. 9700/30.09.16 and Rs. 27608/31.3.17/ are for SB interest. And other 12 credits of Rs. 553698/- on 22.6.2016 are out of maturity proceeds of old FDRs held in names of appellant her two brothers and not through RTGS/NEFT/Cheques as stated in SCN/ass. order by Ld. AO. 1.3 Ld. CIT[A] is unjustified and erred both in fact law by not appreciating the fact, that same Ld. AO wd. 1[2][4] has also made, same addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring ass. proceedings, without giving any adverse findings, just based on information received by his office under Operation Clean Money . Appellant was not liable, to maintain books of account and file ITR. 6. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law fact, in not appreciating the fact that E-assessment Scheme 2019 notified on 12.09.2019 was applicable to the assessments framed u/s 143(3) only and not to the assessment made u/s 144 [vide notification No 61/2019/5.0.3264 (E)]. Subsequently, wef 13.08.2020, assessments u/s 144 were covered under Faceless Assessment Scheme vide Notification No. 60/2020/S.0./2745(E)/dt. 13.08.2020 i.e. subsequent to framing of impugned assessment order u/s 144 on 17.12.19. Thus, the impugned assessment order passed u/s 144 on 17.12.2019 using E-assessment scheme is bad in law. 7. Ld. CIT[A] is unjustified erred in law in not appreciating the fact that Ld. SCN issued by Ld. AO on 03.09.2019 was not supported by the reasons/evidence in disregard of CBDT instruction No. 20/2015| vide para 4 of instruction]. SCN is just founded on the information gathered under 'Operation Clean Money' revealing that appellant has deposited cash in old currency notes, without m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration the submission made by the assessee and the return of income filed by the assessee, passed order u/s. 144 of the Act adding Rs. 20,01,006/- u/s 69A of the Act being unexplained Money. This amount is represented by cash deposit of Rs. 14,10,000/- and other credit of Rs. 5,91,006/-. The AO assessed the income u/s. 115BBE of the Act at the rate of 60% and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC and 271F of the Act. 4. The Assessee filed an appeal against the order of the AO before CIT(A), who sustained half of the addition on account of cash and other deposits in both bank accounts in the hands of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) recorded following observations and reasons before passing such order u/s. 250 of the Act: a. Adequate opportunities have been provided during the course of the assessment proceedings to the assessee. b. Assessee apparently gave summary and generic response and had not availed opportunity to offer satisfactory explanation about the genuineness of the cash credits. c. No further details were provided except name of the members in the family, their age, relation and names. d. The cash was deposited in the joint bank accounts which was kept to meet sudd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her of the assessee. h. While giving relief of half amount deposited in the assessee s bank account, the Ld.CIT(A) has not considered the fact that Rs. 5,91,006/- credited to The Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-op. Bank, Relief Road Branch A/c. No. 066002001008525 were relating to maturity proceeds of deposits and they were not cash deposits. i. The Ld.CIT(A), while deciding the matter has not considered the confirmation letters and Affidavit filed by the relatives which is having evidential value. 6. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and AO stating that the explanations offered by the counsel for the assessee is only a story without any documentary evidence. 7. We have heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The AO has not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court relied upon by the assessee in case of CIT Vs M/s. Panorama Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable as the facts are different. 7.1. However, u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an Assessing Officer (AO) can make a best judgment/assessment, if an assessee: a. Fails to file a return under section 139(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
