Bhavika Siddharth Shah vs. ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Bhavika Siddharth Shah, filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 17.10.2016, declaring total income at Rs.3,45,830/-. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessee’s case vide notice u/s. 148 dated 30.07.2022 for the reason that the assessee had purchased immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs.65,00,000/- from Siddhivinayaka Construction Pvt. Ltd. which was not declared in the return of income filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer then passed the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 20.05.2023, thereby determining the total income at Rs.15,45,830/- after making an addition of Rs.12 lacs u/s. 68 of the Act as ‘unexplained cash credit’ towards the loan received by the assessee from Asiel Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. The assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the impugned assessment order. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer for the reason that in spite of several opportunities, the assessee had failed to substantiate her claim and had been non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disposing off the appeal without appreciating that the reopening of the assessment was barred by the limitation as provided in section 149 of the Income Tax Act and therefore ought to have been quashed.
• 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.12,00,000/- u/s. 68 without appreciating that complete details were filed by an email response.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• M/s. Kanika Gems vs. ITO

  Mumbai bench

• Nayana Digant Kapadia Vs. Income Tax Officer

  H(SMC) Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Vilayil Satyan Pillai vs Assessment Unit, NFAC Delhi

  Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Shri Aditya Mundada, Warangal. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 5, Warangal. and Purushotham Mundada (HUF), Warangal. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Hyderabad.

  Hyderabad bench

• NIKITA KAPOOR Vs ITO, NFAC, DELHI / ITO, WARD 54(1), NEW DELHI

• Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Riva Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

  Mumbai bench