9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e book of accounts has not been rejected by the AO. We observed that in support of the above, the assessee has filed the paper book in which he has filed details of the sale and purchase of the jewellery and the same was increased due to the festival occasion because the people may have chosen to purchase the jewellery in cash. Therefore, the assessee has explained the reason of the increase of the cash sale during the year under consideration. We observed that the assessee has deposited during the demonetization period in the bank account and explained the reason of the cash deposit, hence he has discharged the onus and prove the genuineness of the transaction. In view of the above, there is no justification for sustaining addition u/s. 69A - Decided in favour of assessee. - Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member And Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member For the Appellants : Sh. Anil Jain, CA, Sh. Sarveshwar Singh, Advocate Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA For the Respondent : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ], vide order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not applicable. The above action of the AO is unfair and arbitrary and against the principal of natural justice. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,51,620/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS to verify cash deposit during demonetization period. Accordingly, notices u/s. 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act were issued. The assessee made cash deposit to the tune of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- into the bank account to HDFC Bank Ltd. during the demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that the source for the cash depositing during the demonetization period was cash sales but failed to furnish necessary documentary evidence in support of its claim. Therefore, the AO treated the cash deposits as unexplained money and made the addition of Rs 2,25,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act, as unexplained money. Aggrieved the order of the A O the assessee has filed the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons, firstly, there cannot be any estoppels against the statue. It is not the case of the revenue that the assessee consciously waived his right to raise such a jurisdictional issue. Secondly, the assessee had filed an application before the learned Tribunal seeking leave to raise additional grounds and this application was held and after contest the application was allowed. The learned Tribunal, in fact, recorded that the Department could not controvert any of the submissions of the assessee on the additional grounds which have been raised and, therefore, the application was allowed taking note of the matter that the issue goes to the root of the entire proceedings. 8. The Ld DR has submitted that the assessee has not challenged the jurisdiction of the AO. He has submitted that notice u/s 143(2) was served within time. The assessee has attended the proceedings but never challenged the jurisdiction of the AO within time. Reliance has placed on the followings judgment : 1. Abhishek Jain Vs Income Tax officer, ward-55(1), New Delhi{2018} 94 taxmann.com 355 (Delhi), in this case Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under :- 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction (2) to Section 124 of the Act. 23. In view of the above discussion, objections as to the jurisdiction of assessing officer in the present case cannot be equated with lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They relate to place of assessment. Income-Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Noida would not per se lack jurisdiction, albeit he had concurrent jurisdiction with the Income-Tax Officer Ward-36(1)/58, Delhi. In facts of the present case the contention raised about the lack of jurisdiction would not justify quashing the notice under section 147/148 of the Act. 2. In the case of Commissioner of income tax -III vs Shri Shyam the Hon ble Delhi High Court held s as under :- 5. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that the ITAT possessed jurisdiction to return a finding on whether the AO s order was a nullity, and can give the verdict that such adjudication cannot go into the merits of such of the proceedings. Facially, Section124(3) stipulates a bar to any contention about lack of jurisdiction of an AO. It is not as if the provisions of the Act disable an assessee from contending that in the given circumstances the AO lacks jurisdiction; rather Section 124(3) limits the availability of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... register item wise and value wise was filed. Further copy of the complete item wise and value wise stock summary of the FY 2016-17 was also filed before the AO and the assessee also filed the copy of the returns. We also observed that even the book of accounts has not been rejected by the AO. We observed that in support of the above, the assessee has filed the paper book in which he has filed details of the sale and purchase of the jewellery and the same was increased due to the festival occasion because the people may have chosen to purchase the jewellery in cash. Therefore, the assessee has explained the reason of the increase of the cash sale during the year under consideration. We observed that the assessee has deposited Rs. 2,25,00,000/- during the demonetization period in the bank account and explained the reason of the cash deposit, hence he has discharged the onus and prove the genuineness of the transaction. In view of the above, there is no justification for sustaining addition of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act. In view of the above, we hold that the Ld. AO has wrongly made the addition of Rs. 2,25,00,000/-, therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
