https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303026 The court upheld the assessment order, demand, and penalty proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer, rejecting the petitioner's challenge. It found that the orders were not in violation of natural justice and advised the petitioner to pursue a statutory appeal. The court emphasized that the cash deposits during demonetization were explained and duly recorded, criticizing the Officer's treatment of them as unexplained income. The petitioner was granted liberty to appeal within four weeks without limitation hindrance, and coercive actions were stayed pending the appeal process. The court focused on ensuring the petitioner's right to appeal and refrained from adjudicating disputed facts. en-us Fri, 16 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2022 20:59:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303026 The court upheld the assessment order, demand, and penalty proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer, rejecting the petitioner's challenge. It found that the orders were not in violation of natural justice and advised the petitioner to pursue a statutory appeal. The court emphasized that the cash deposits during demonetization were explained and duly recorded, criticizing the Officer's treatment of them as unexplained income. The petitioner was granted liberty to appeal within four weeks without limitation hindrance, and coercive actions were stayed pending the appeal process. The court focused on ensuring the petitioner's right to appeal and refrained from adjudicating disputed facts. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303026