Addition against unexplained cash deposit of ₹49.50 lakh was remanded back to AO for verification if the deposits were from business activities, the addition under Section 69A could not stand.
As the AO had not allowed certain credits of advance tax, TDS and also interest on excess payment of self-assessment tax, assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) who issued necessary directions to the AO.
Appellant should pursue the alternate remedy of appeal, even if it involved depositing tax as writ jurisdiction should be exercised only in the absence of an effective alternative remedy.
Respondent had already reached the age of superannuation and he worked under pressure, penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct established against the respondent and his unblemished career for a long time.
Assessee also pointed out that the income from these credits was included in its accounts for the year and taxed accordingly. A claim for interest under section 244A for the short refund was also raised.
Respondents submitted that the impugned orders did not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Under a notice, the Sub-Registrar, Chodavaram, Anakapalli District was informed about the arrears of the Society and the requirement to attach the properties of assessee, for recovery of such dues.
Addition made under Section 69A for an alleged unexplained cash loan was not justified as assessee provided evidence of receiving the loan through banking channels and not through cash.
Reopening of notice under section 148A(b) was valid as assessee was served notices both physically and via email and assessee had been granted sufficient opportunity to respond to the notice however, assessee failed to avail the opportunity granted.
Assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under section 194H as relationship between e-commerce platform and assessee was not of an agency but that of two independent parties on principal to principal basis.