Balwan Singh vs. ITO, Ward 3, Panipat

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Balwan Singh, deposited Rs.54,00,000/- in his savings bank account during FY 2009-10 relevant to AY 2010-11. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and issued a notice under section 148. The assessee claimed that the cash belonged to Smt. Lali, who deposited the amount from the sale of her agricultural land. Smt. Lali also filed an affidavit acknowledging the transaction. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's submission, treating the cash as undisclosed income under section 69A of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the notice under section 148 was without jurisdiction and that the assessee acted merely as a conduit for the cash belonging to Smt. Lali.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is without jurisdiction?
• 2. Whether the assessee is merely a conduit for the cash deposited in his account?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Tirtha Pratim Basu vs. ITO, Ward-61(3), Kolkata

  Kolkata bench

• Smt. Bharti Sharma vs. Dy. CIT and Sh. Pankaj Sharma vs. Dy. CIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2021-22Allowed

• DCIT Vs Shally Thapar

  Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi benchAY 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22Dismissed

• Ram Singh Hooda v. Income Tax Office

  Delhi bench

• Rabiul Islam Gain Vs. ITO, Ward 49(1) and Tapan Kumar Pal Vs. DCIT, Circle 49(1)

  Kolkata benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• Smt. Bimla Kaur Multani vs. ITO, Ward Dasuya

  Amritsar bench