In the matter abovementioned ITAT deleted addition made on account of undisclosed cash deposits during demonetization period after observing that assessee has substantiate means of income for depositing cash.
Aggrieved by this order, assessee filed an appeal before Tribunal. It was held that CIT(E) had not examined the objects and activities of assessee trust which were the twin conditions for granting registration under Section 12A/12AB
The date on which AO passed the above order was 28.11.2019; therefore, re-opening of case for AY.2011-12 is time barred as per the clear provisions of section 150(2) of the Act. Hence, the direction of the CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Surat held that in absence of any corroborative evidence with regard to payment of amount mentioned in sauda chitti, assessee is not entitled to claim enhanced cost of acquisition and hence appeal of the assessee dismissed.
ITAT considered two issues on this aspect. Firstly, whether PCIT rightly exercised its revisional jurisdiction and secondly whether order u/s 263 was passed on merits regarding to the net foreign exchange gain.
ITAT Surat held that purchase of credit cards by making cash payments without providing explanation with regard to nature and source of money is liable to be added under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
Entire cash deposits made during demonetization could not be treated as unexplained credit and a reasonable addition of 20% of total cash deposit would be sufficient to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage.
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.
