Brijesh Kumar vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Noida, UP

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition under sections 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for an amount of Rs. 13,03,400/- for cash deposits during the period 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 in a savings bank account. The assessee was asked to provide details but failed to do so, leading to the impugned addition. Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) dismissed the appeal for being filed 30 days late. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition of Rs. 13,03,400/- by the AO is arbitrary and bad in law.
• 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
• 3. Whether the AO's reliance on AIR information without independent application of mind is valid.
• 4. Whether the approval by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 151 is mechanical.
• 5. Whether the verification letters issued under section 133(6) are legally valid.
• 6. Whether the AO failed to consider corresponding cash withdrawals while imposing the addition.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• M/s R.N. Khemka Enterprises P. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(3), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2007-08Allowed

• Pravesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs ITO, Ward-62(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2021-2022Allowed

• Mithu Pal Vs. I.T.O., Ward-50(2), Kolkata

  Kolkata 'A' Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2012-13Dismissed

• Pack Plast India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

  Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi benchAY 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18Allowed

• Shashi Todi Vs ITO, Ward-47(2), Kolkata

  Kolkata benchAY 2017-2018Dismissed

• Purnima Priyadarshi Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Biharsharif

  Patna Bench at Kolkata benchAY 2017-18Allowed