9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be followed by the subordinate authorities. For the affiant Ambernath B. Khule to state that the ITAT erred and the Court should not consider the order of the ITAT is highly objectionable. If the Officers of the Income Tax Department are allowed to continue this way, it will result only in undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws. Thus Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to return amount of Rs. 16 lakhs seized from the Petitioner on 17.7.2018. The amount shall be returned on or before 31st August 2023. If this amount is not returned to Petitioner by the department on or before 31st August 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d an order dated 28th April 2021. The Assessing Officer added this amount of Rs.16 lakhs as unexplained money under Section 69-A of the Act and determined the total income at Rs. 57,26,500/-. Petitioner had filed return of income of Rs. 41,26,500/- for A.Y. 2019-20. The computation sheet was also provided and Petitioner was informed that Petitioner had to pay Rs.15,81,282/- as further tax/ penalty/ interest etc. Petitioner challenged this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] who concurred with the finding of the Assessing Officer. Petitioner challenged this order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on various grounds. The grounds raised were as under:- 1. CIA(A) has decided appeal with a closed mind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ledger account of the professional fees maintained by Petitioner, these amounts have been accounted for. ITAT, after perusing the records also found that the cash balance of Petitioner as on the date of confiscation was Rs. 19,81,403/- and Petitioner has been periodically withdrawing the money from the bank account in cash which is also substantiated by the entries in the bank statement. ITAT accepted Petitioner s contention that the source of Rs. 16 lakhs seized from Petitioner is the professional income and therefore cannot be treated as unexplained income. The ITAT also found that the provisions of Section 69-A of the Act provides that the addition can be made if assessee is found to be owner of the money that is not recorded in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the order of the ITAT is highly objectionable. If the Officers of the Income Tax Department are allowed to continue this way, it will result only in undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws. 8. At this stage, Ms. Gokhale requested that paragraph 5.7 of the affidavit of Kulhe be considered to have been withdrawn. In view of this request of Ms. Gokhale, we are not issuing or passing any strictures against said Ambernath B. Khule but we only hope that the concerned authority Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 will perhaps have an orientation session for all its Officers to train them suitably. 9. In the circumstances, we allow the Petition in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as under:- that this Hon ble C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
