Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2022 (12) TMI 1519

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in law as well as on facts while upholding the following additions to the returned income. Fin Year Totar Cash withdrawals from Bank A/c Cash used for Household/ personal purposes Cash Saved and kept in house used for redeposit in Bank A/c as per the Appellant Savings out of cash drawn estimated by the AO Addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT (A) - 2015-16 9,75,000 5,75,000 4,00,000 2,50,000 3,96,000   (646000-250000) 2016-17 3,97,500 1,51,500 2,46,000 Total 13,72,500 7,26,500 6,46,000 2,50,000 3,96,000 2) Because the following observations of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi in the order U/s 250 of the IT Act, are arbitrary, baseless and mis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as A.O.) found that an amount of Rs. 11,46,000/- had been deposited in cash by the assessee in his bank account during the demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained these cash deposits as follows (i) Return of cash loan by his brother-in-law Rs. 5,00,000/- (ii) Cash deposited out of his personal savings arising from the salary income during the F.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17 Rs. 6,46,000/-   Total Rs. 11,46,000/- 2.1 The A.O. accepted the assessee's contention regarding the cash loan returned by his brother-in-law amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-. However, regarding the balance amount of Rs. 6.46.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... out of total cash withdrawal of Rs. 13,72.500/- amount of Rs. 6,46,000/- was the cash in hand appears to be not correct. This is in view of the fact the assessee has drawn the amount frequently which means the amounts are utilised for the purpose for which it was drawn. On the other hand, possibility of cash in hand out of the withdrawals cannot be ruled out. Therefore, looking at the profile of the assessee in terms of salary drawn, cash drawn from Bank account, online payments made for drawing and other expenses, it can be concluded that the assessee might have been left with a cash of Rs. 2.50,000/- out of the withdrawals from the Bank accounts. Thus, it is clear that the assessee has failed to explain the source and natu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f filing the appeal before the Tribunal only when the assessee received the call from I.T. Department to pay the outstanding demand immediately. Therefore, after taking the remedial measures, assessee taking the steps to file the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. DR strongly objected the admission of appeal by the Tribunal since there was inordinate delay of 282 days. 6. I heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. This past-Covid period delay need not be explained in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in MA No. 29 of 2022 in MA 665 of 2021 in suo moto WP(C) No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.1.2022, wherein held that "in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, ap....