The assessee was engaged in the business of providing works contract service and labour service. AO found that assessee had made a cash deposit of Rs.62,10,000/- in the bank account during demonetization period.
ITAT Surat remands case to AO for verification of Rs. 15.71 Lakh liability under Section 41(1) due to lack of evidence of payment and TDS deduction.
Clause (ba) of sub-section (1) of section 12A was applicable for AY.2018-19 onwards and not for AY.2017-18, assessee-temple trust was entitled to tax exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 . Hence, the order of AO was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and therefore, it was not amenable to revision u/s 263.
Assessee filed its return of income for the 2018-19 AY declaring a total of ₹12,33,640 and assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issues of “imports and exports”, and various notices were issued and served upon assessee.
The Surat Bench of ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purpose which means that ITAT uphold the decision of CIT (A) but without any real impact on the case. It allowed TDS credit of the of Rs.4,50,000/- but in AY 2018-19 whereas it was claimed in AY 2016-17.
ITAT Surat held that each and every addition cannot be a basis for levying a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. There has to be deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealed income for levy of penalty.
Assessee had not challenged the validity of reopening, though for the first time, assessee had challenged the action of AO by taking plea that AO should have assessed assessee under section 153C and not section 147/148.
ITAT Surat held that the Fixed Deposits can be treated as stock-in-trade if it forms part of banking business. Further, held that deposits that forms part of banking business, write off such loss will be a loss arising in the course of carrying on banking business.
ITAT Surat held that delay in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) since the assessee was displaced from his office due to attachment of office on account of some purported fraud committed by him is sufficient cause.
As the assessee had not submitted his explanation with respect to cash deposit made by him during the demonetization period, the same was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.
