Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

The learned Single Judge, after hearing the submissions made on both sides, finding that a statutory appellate remedy is available to the petitioner by filing regular appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority, disposed of the writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority, within a period of three weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the said order and further directed the Appellate Authority to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the period of limitation. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner/appellant filed the present intra court appeal.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961- Appeal - Appeal to High Court- Assessee without availing the appellate remedy, filed the Writ Petition before the writ court, therefore, it was directed to assessee to file statutory appeal before the appellate authority challenging the order passed by AO.

Facts: Assessment proceedings were concluded holding that the account balance of the assessee was Rs. 1,116/-; if the assessee was really having an opening cash balance of Rs. 2,60,000/-, there is no need to take a jewel loan on 17-6-2016 of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The explanation given by the assessee that the cash deposited during the demonetization period made out of cash in hand which was more than four months, for Rs. 11,10,000/- is considered as devoid of any facts and against human probability. Since AO came to the conclusion that cash deposits in the bank brought to tax u/s.69A as the unexplained money of the assessee, it was brought to tax u/s.69A and penalty proceedings u/s.271AAC was initiated. Being aggrieved, assessee filed a writ petition raising the ground that order passed by revenue is in violation of principles of natural justice and without giving notice and personal hearing and without jurisdiction.

Held, that the fact that the explanation given by assessee that the cash deposited during the demonetization period made out of cash in hand (which was more than four months) of Rs. 11,10,000/- was against human probability and that there is no explanation for the source and nature of cash deposits in the Savings Bank Account, brought the above unexplained income to tax under section 69A.The learned Single Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, disposed of the writ petition, by granting liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to file appeal before the concerned appellate authority. It shows that the assessee herein, without availing the appellate remedy, filed the Writ Petition before the writ court. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, directed the writ petitioner/appellant herein to file statutory appeal before the appellate authority, challenging the order passed by the Assessing Officer.Therefore, Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. - NARASIMMAN PADMAVATHY V/s ITO - [2020] 29 ITCD Online 002 (MAD)