Bisauha Ram Verma Vs ITO-1(2), Raipur

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Bisauha Ram Verma, had deposited a large sum of Rs. 34,00,000/- in his savings bank account on 08.10.2010. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated this deposit as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and added it to the assessee's total income. The assessee appealed against this addition and the subsequent penalties imposed for non-compliance. The assessee argued that the deposit was from the sale of rural agricultural land and thus not taxable. The Tribunal considered the arguments and the registered sale deed, which showed a sale consideration of only Rs. 3,12,000/-. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- as unexplained investment under Section 69
• 2. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income
• 3. Penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with statutory notices
• 4. Penalty under Section 271F for non-filing of Income Tax Return

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society vs ITO, Ward 1, Hisar

  Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi benchAY 2016-17, 2017-18Allowed

• Jagdish Amrutlal Thakar vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• POOJA PRABHAKAR Vs. ITO NCW 15 (1) CHENNAI

• Tanuj Pahilaj Lalwani vs Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(1)

  Mumbai Bench 'E', Mumbai benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• BMW Industries Limited Vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1)

  Kolkata benchAY 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17Allowed

• Ram Garhia Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-63(1), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi benchAY 2014-15Allowed