Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

It is the contention of the petitioner that in the impugned order, the respondent Deputy Commissioner has erroneously came to a conclusion that the petitioner has not properly explained the deposit of cash amounting Rs. 67,37,500/- collected during thedemonetization into their account and that the petitioner has claimed the source of cash deposit duringdemonetization as the accumulated cash balance as on 08.11.2016 wrongly.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 69A & 153 of Income Tax act, 1961 - Unexplained Investment - Since the assessment proceedings no longer involve human interaction and is based on records alone, the assessment proceeding should have commenced much earlier so that before passing assessment order, the AO could have come to a definite conclusion on facts after fully understanding the nature of business of the petitioner. It appears that the return of income was filed by the petitioner on 02.11.2017. However, the assessment proceeding commenced much later towards the end of the period prescribed under section 153 of the Act, 1961. Hence, assessment proceeding under the changed scenario would require proper determination of facts by proper exchange and flow of correspondence between the petitioner and the AO. Thus, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order. - SALEM SREE RAMAVILAS CHIT COMPANY (P) LTD. V/s DEPUTY CIT - [2020] 273 TAXMAN 068 (MAD)

Professional services available Audit Management
Tax Lok English Viedo
Tax Lok Hindi Viedo
Check Your Tax Knowledge
Youtube
HR Consulting services

FOR FREE CONDUCTED TOUR OF OUR ON-LINE LIBRARIES WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE-- CLICK HERE

FOR ANY SUPPORT ON GST/INCOME TAX

Do You Want To Take FREE DEMO Of Our GST/Income Tax Library.