Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
During the demonetization period, the assessee deposited Rs. 36.50 lacs in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) in their bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition u/s 69A by applying the rate of 77.25% and attracting Section 115BBE instead of the normal tax slab. However, the assessee had shown opening cash in hand and provided details of cash expenses, which were not disputed by the authorities. The withdrawals and opening cash balance were also undisputed. Even after depositing Rs. 36.50 lacs, the assessee showed Rs. 9,72,482/- as cash in hand, which was not disputed. The Appellate Tribunal held that since the source of cash withdrawals was proved, no addition on account of SBN deposits was justified when the assessee had no option but to deposit the high-denomination notes during demonetization. The AO's action was based on mere suspicion and guesswork. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
During the demonetization period, the assessee deposited Rs. 36.50 lacs in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) in their bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition u/s 69A by applying the rate of 77.25% and attracting Section 115BBE instead of the normal tax slab. However, the assessee had shown opening cash in hand and provided details of cash expenses, which were not disputed by the authorities. The withdrawals and opening cash balance were also undisputed. Even after depositing Rs. 36.50 lacs, the assessee showed Rs. 9,72,482/- as cash in hand, which was not disputed. The Appellate Tribunal held that since the source of cash withdrawals was proved, no addition on account of SBN deposits was justified when the assessee had no option but to deposit the high-denomination notes during demonetization. The AO's action was based on mere suspicion and guesswork. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
