9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income Tax Department to pave way for an objective assessment without human interaction. At the same time, such proceedings can lead to erroneous assessment if officers are not able to understand the transactions and statement of accounts of an assessee without a personal hearing. The respondent should have to be therefore at least called for an explanation in writing before proceeding to conclude that the amount collected by the petitioner was unusual. Petitioner has prima facie demonstrated that the assessment proceeding has resulted in distorted conclusion on facts that amount collected by the petitioner during the period was huge and remained unexplained by the petitioner and therefore same was liable to be treated as unaccounted money in the hands of the petitioner under Section 69A\ 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 respondent assessing officer 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20.06.2019 and 29.10.2019 under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informations were furnished as early as on 17.02.2017 and thereafter as per the formats requested by the respondent. He further submits that the petitioner had closing balance of cash on hand as on 31.10.2016 for a sum ₹ 38,72,374/- which would consist of both demonetized and non-demonetized cash until then and thereafter, the petitioner received further cash deposit from the various subscribers amounting to ₹ 57,85,655/- out of which a sum of ₹ 26,77,716/- had already been deposited before the demonetization. 5.It is therefore contented that the amount which was not deposited before the demonetization amounting to ₹ 67,37,500/- was explained in terms of the details furnished on 17.02.2017 in compliance with the requirements of the Reserve Bank of India, pursuant to demonetization of ue curency on 08.11.2016. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the collection of amount by the petitioner during the period proceedings eight months was also not in variance with the amounts collected by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... less the Commissioner (Appeals) can call for the records from the Officer and pass appropriate orders under Section 250 r/w 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He submits that while undertaking such an exercise, the Commissioner (Appeals) would act like an Original Authority after getting necessary report from the assessing officer. 11.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent further submits that Assessment Year 2017-18 onwards, assessments are through e-proceedings. He submits that the Income Tax Department has developed an e-proceedings facility, wherein a simple method of communication between the department and assessee has been devised negating the visit by the assessee or his representatives to the Department. The information which are loaded will be scrutinized and appropriate orders will be passed. He further submits that is was open for the petitioner to call for the report of the respondent as per note on e-proceedings and the Commissioner (Appeals) has ample powers to pass appropriate orders. 12.I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent. 13.I have also perused the records filed by the petitioner which prece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16. Between 01.11.2016 and 08.11.2016, the petitioner had collected a sum of ₹ 57,85,655/-which is also does not appear to be usual as compared to collections made during the November 2015. Out of the total collection of ₹ 57,85,655/-and a closing cash of ₹ 38,72,374/- as on 31.10.2016, the petitioner deposited an amount of ₹ 26,77,716/- which is also not in variance with the cash deposits made by the petitioner during the preceding financial year. Collection of monthly subscription/dues by the petitioner during the aforesaid period appear to be reasonable as compared to be same period during 2015. 15.The Government of India has introduced E-Governance for conduct of assessment proceedings electronically. It is a laudable steps taken by the Income Tax Department to pave way for an objective assessment without human interaction. At the same time, such proceedings can lead to erroneous assessment if officers are not able to understand the transactions and statement of accounts of an assessee without a personal hearing. The respondent should have to be therefore at least called for an explanation in writing before proceeding to conclude that the amount col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
