DCIT (International Taxation), Jaipur v. Kavita Khanwani

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Mrs. Kavita Khanwani, did not file a return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer (AO) had information that the assessee had made time deposits of Rs 1,75,33,158 on 14.10.2017 and Rs 1,65,83,747 on 21.02.2018 with IndusInd Bank Ltd. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2022. The assessee did not respond to that notice, to the notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated 27.09.2022 and 04.11.2022 or to the show cause notices dated 16.01.2023 and 01.02.2023. The AO completed the assessment to the best of his judgment and treated the aggregate of Rs 3,41,16,905 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The assessee filed statements of the two deposits and of the joint Non-Resident External (NRE) savings account with the same bank from which the deposits were funded. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the ground on jurisdiction and examined the bank statements and held that the addition of Rs. 3,41,16,905/- made by the AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961 has no force, hence, it is hereby deleted.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee in contravention to rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules?
• 2. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified in assuming the powers vested to the Assessing officer to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness produced by the appellant by admitting additional evidences without providing opportunity to the AO?
• 3. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 3,41,16,905 made u/s 69A of the I.T. Act 1961 and did not appreciate the findings of the AO that the assessee failed to furnish evidences relating to the source of time deposit of Rs. 3,41,16,905 in her bank account?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

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

  Kolkata bench

• Narmada Commodities Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward-6(3)

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2010-11 & 2011-12Partly Allowed

• Prabhatbhai Khodabhai Desai vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• HETAAL JASWANTRAI PAREKH Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

  Mumbai bench

• Mayank Jain Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Meerut

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Hansraj Vs Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Partly Allowed