Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Tirupati. Vs. Shri Ponnambalam Krishnan
Parties Involved
Facts Summary
The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 declaring an income of Rs.18,01,470/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued section 142(1) notices to the assessee seeking information regarding cash deposits. However, these notices remained uncomplied with, and the AO framed the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO made several additions, including Rs.98,75,994/- under section 68, Rs.23,57,500/- for cash deposits during demonetisation, Rs.20,67,263/- under section 40(a)(ia), and disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.53,293/-. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who partly allowed the appeal. The revenue then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…
Decision in favour of
Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue
Legal Issues
- 1. Failure to provide documentary evidence for unsecured loans.
- 2. Failure to provide information on cash deposits during demonetisation.
- 3. Failure to substantiate compliance under section 40(a)(ia).
- 4. Failure to provide proof for additions to fixed assets.
- 5. Treatment of agricultural income as income from other sources.
Judgment Outcome
Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.
Precedents Relied Upon
3 precedents cited in this judgement.
Similar Judgements
Mukesh Jain vs. The ITO
Jodhpur benchMukesh Kumar Agrawal vs ITO Ward 54(5)
Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2017-18AllowedResponse Renewable Energy Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata
SMC Bench Kolkata benchAY 2017-18AllowedRanjit Singh Kundalia Vs. ITO, Ward-62(1), Kolkata
Kolkata benchHarish Chander Sehgal vs ITO
Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Partly AllowedBK Garden Fresh Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata
Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed