ITAT examined demonetisation cash deposits and accepted sales and withdrawals as valid sources. However, addition was partly sustained due to unsubstantiated claims like cash gifts.
The Court refused to interfere as the writ petition was filed after completion of reassessment proceedings. It held that factual disputes must be examined through statutory appeal, not writ jurisdiction.
The Court clarified that recovery actions must be confined to the assessee liable for tax. Attaching a director’s personal account without evidence of liability was held unlawful. The judgment underscores limits on recovery powers.
United Associates Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) A Writ Petition was filed in Hon’ble Delhi high Court to set aside the notice dated 28.06.2022 issued by the Income Tax Department under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and order u/s 148A(d) issued by the Respondent No.1 under section 148 of the Income Tax […]
