9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details before him has passed the order under Section 263 of the Act. PCIT has not taken cognisance of the assessment proceedings wherein the details were called related to demonetization period and related cash deposits. The CBDT circular in respect of cash deposits in Rs. 500 and Rs.1000 denomination notes are permissible and, therefore, the assessee has justified his conduct in relation to cash deposits during demonetization period. Therefore, AO has rightly accepted the contention without giving any details thereto in the assessment order. Once the Assessing Officer is satisfied, it is not necessary to comment on the same in the assessment order. Thus, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m engaged in trading. The assessee firm filed return of income on 05.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.22,83,450/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 accepting the return of income of Rs.22,83,450/-. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) observed that during the period under consideration, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.1,32,11,370/- in old currency in the bank account and not submitted any justification or source of cash which was deposited in the Bank. In the absence of any explanation the cash was required to be added to the total income of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer has also failed to consider the related applicability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinued for a further period from the midnight of 24.11.2016 upto and inclusive of 15.12.2016:- For purchase of petrol diesel and gas at the stations operating under the authorisation of Public Sector Oil and Gas Marketing Companies 6. Therefore, as per the above notification the assessee was allowed to accept the SBN s The Ld. AR further submitted that revision proceedings were initiated on the ground that the Assessing Officer has failed to properly examine the issue with respect to cash deposits in Bank Account. The Ld. AR further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 20.07.2019 thereby calling upon the details in respect of cash deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 27.11.2019 and order was passed on 13.12.2019 and the assessment order did not mention the date of submission in the dates of hearing. As per the assessment order, the last date of hearing was 15.11.2019. Therefore, there was no verification or enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer on the details filed thereafter. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT (1975), 99 ITR 375 as well as the decision of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Renu Gupta vs. CIT, 301 ITR 45. The Ld. DR also relied upon the decision of Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, 299 ITR 435 and Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
