TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Allows Fresh Hearing on Unexplained Cash Deposits During Demonetization, Prioritizing Substantial Justice for Taxpayer</h1> <h3>Fazal Husain Versus ITO, Ward 59 (7), Delhi</h3> In a tax appeal, the Tribunal set aside orders of the AO and CIT(A) regarding unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. Despite the assessee's ... Unexplained deposits during demonetization - HELD THAT:- It is crystal clear that the appellant-assessee is running a mother diary booth. The appellant had deposited cash in the bank account which has been treated as unexplained by the AO vide his order dated 09.12.2019. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. In view of the above material facts and in the interest of substantial justice, it is considered expedient to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the order of the ld. AO and restore the matter to the file of the ld. AO for fresh decision in accordance with the law. Appeal filed by the appellant-assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The appellant-assessee challenged the order dated 07.10.2024 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['ld. CIT(A)'] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising from the assessment order dated 09.12.2019 under section 143(1) by the Assessing Officer (ITO) for AY 2017-18. The assessee had e-filed income return declaring Rs. 3,81,580/-, but during limited scrutiny under CASS for cash deposits during demonetization, the AO noted unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 58,80,600/-. The assessee failed to respond to notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) and did not appear for proceedings. The AO made additions of Rs. 58,80,600/- and Rs. 1,48,500/-, upheld by the CIT(A).The appellant, running a mother dairy booth, appeared in person and explained inability to appear earlier. The Tribunal noted the failure of the assessee to respond but emphasized the need for substantial justice. It set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication with an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.Key holding: The Tribunal held it 'considered expedient to set aside the order dated 07.10.2024 of the ld. CIT(A) and the order dated 09.12.2019 of the ld. AO and restore the matter to the file of the ld. AO for fresh decision in accordance with the law,' ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity of hearing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
