Arvindbhai Lavjibhai Chaudhary Vs. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Arvindbhai Lavjibhai Chaudhary, filed an appeal against the appellate order dated 07.12.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Anand/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee raised several grounds of appeal, including the passing of an ex-parte order by the Learned CIT (Appeals) and the improper invocation of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the cash deposits made were duly recorded in the books of accounts and that the provisions of Section 69A were not applicable. Additionally, the assessee contested the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 44AD of the Act, arguing that the profit margin in their business was negligible. The assessee requested that the order be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in passing an Ex-parte order and dismissing the appeal without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
• 2. The Learned Asst Unit erred in invoking the provisions of Section 69A of the Act while making the addition of Rs 14,80,500/- towards cash deposits made for the year.
• 3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made of Rs 13,64,294/- made by AO applying provisions of Section 44AD of the Act.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Similar Judgements

• Shambhubhai Keshabhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Javed Munir Khan Vs. ITO 26(1)(4)

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Diwakar Gupta vs. Income Tax Officer

  Agra bench

• Mahesh Narsinghani vs. ITO 28(2)(1)

  Mumbai 'C' Bench benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Shri Biluve Dharme Prasanna Vs. The Income Tax Officer

  SMC-‘C’ Bench : Bangalore benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Karkuvel Pandian Soundarapandian vs The ITO, Ward-2, Tuticorin