Bindu Ketan Dhami vs. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order, dated 11/06/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Assessee against the penalty order, dated 26/08/2016, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of INR 3,66,225/- for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. Under the facts and in law, the learned Commission of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as …

Legal Issues

• 1. Under the facts and in law, the learned Commission of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)") erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
• 2. Under the facts and in circumstances, the learned CIT(A) ought to have passed the order on merit of the case.
• 3. Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") of Rs 3,66,225/-
• 4. Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the alleged addition made by the Assessing officer (herein after referred to as "learned A.O.") of Rs.12,00,000/-, being the unsecured loan taken from Vijay Mercantile Private Limited as income from undisclosed source was merely on the basis of presumption, surmises and conjecture
• 5. Under the facts and in circumstances, the addition made is not in accordance with the law as the same has been made on the basis of evidences collected behind the back of the assessee.
• 6. Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) is erred in passing the order without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and making submission.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Himanshu Mittal vs. Income Tax Officer

  Agra bench

• V3 Corporation vs. Income Tax Officer

  Agra bench

• DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi Vs. FJM Cylinders Pvt. Ltd

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2015-16Dismissed

• Sh. Mukesh Khurana vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2008-09Allowed

• Income Tax Officer, New Delhi Vs. Advermark Wiresmith Pvt. Ltd.

• Smt. Smita Ashok Thakkar vs. DCIT

  Mumbai bench