Swastik Enterprises Pranshu Goel Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass order after affording reasonable, adequate and effective opportunity of being heard and hence the appeal of the assessee is deserves to be allowed.
Facts- The case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS so as to examine “Large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to predemonetization period” and “Low income from TCS Receipts Scraps”. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of Income Tax Act dated 10.08.2018 was issued and served upon the assessee through email and speed post. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of Income Tax Act dated 04.01.2019, 30.03.2019, 09.04.2019, 01.05.2019, 13.05.2019, were issued but part compliance was made to these notices. Later on, due to change of incumbent, notices u/s 142(1) of Income Tax Act dated 24.08.2019, 11.09.2019, 26.10.2019 and show cause notices dated 14.11.2019, 24.11.2019, 04.12.2019 and notices u/s 142(1) of Income Tax Act dated 11.12.2019 and 17.12.2019 were issued and served upon the assessee. In response to these statutory notices, the assessee submitted its replies.
In his findings, the AO in absence of any proper justification being filed by the assessee for making cash sales and keeping cash in hand out of cash withdrawals made from the banks, the cash deposits of Rs.1,39,23,500/- made by the assessee during demonetization period remained unexplained. AO made the addition of Rs.1,39,23,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposit u/s. and Rs.10,37,362/- on account of concealed his correct income on this ground, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) have been separately initiated.
