Balesh Jain & Sons HUF vs. Income -Tax Officer Ward 55

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The case of the assessee was re-opened for A.Y. 2014-15 u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued dated 29-06-2022. In the response of the notice the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs.10,80,400/-. The assessing Officer completed the assessment after making the addition of Rs.87,60,348/- under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 11-12-2024 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the order of the Ld. AO is bad in law and facts of the case.
• 2. Re-opening is bad in law and on wrong facts.
• 3. AO ignored all the reply submitted by the assessee through online portal time to time and passed an ex-parte order.
• 4. No dealing with Mr. Naresh Mankchand.
• 5. No money was received from Mr. Naresh Manakchand Jain and no deposit shown in the bank.
• 6. No addition can be made under section 68 of the case.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• M/s Stupendors Traders Private Limited vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata

• The A.C.I.T. Vs. M/s Nine Corporate Inception Pvt Ltd

  Delhi ‘E’ Bench benchAY 2014-15, 2013-14, 2016-17, 2015-16Dismissed

• Khusendra Prasad Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Gangtok

  Kolkata ‘C’ Bench benchAY 2013-14 & 2014-15Allowed

• Durga Trading Co. Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ghaziabad

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

• Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. 7NR Retail Ltd.

  Ahmedabad bench

• ITA No. 138/Mum/2025