Balaram Choudhary Versus AO, Ward 1(1), Jodhpur

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Balaram Choudhary, is an agriculturist who did not file his return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer gathered information that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.10,86,000/- with HDFC Bank during the demonetization period. The assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, which was not complied with by the assessee. The Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee deposited cash in old currency of Rs.10,86,000/- which was subsequently transferred to M/s. Agarwal Iron. The assessee claimed to have received the sum from his relatives and out of the agricultural sale which could not be explained to the extent of Rs.3,81,000/-, and, therefore, the addition of Rs.3,81,000/- was made to the total income of the assessee.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition of Rs.3,81,000/- made by the Assessing Officer is justified?
• 2. Whether the penalty imposed under sections 271AAC, 272(1)(d), and 271F of the Income Tax Act is correct?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Marche Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Ranjeet Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-5(5), Patna

  Patna Bench at Kolkata benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Sri Guru Thipperudraswamy Devasthana vs. The Income Tax Officer

• Vortex Rubber Industries Private Limited vs. ACIT Circle 26(2), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Mr. Rathanlal Choudhary v. The ITO

  Chennai bench

• Kalna Regulated Market Committee vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Burdwan

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-19Allowed