Devidas Bhimaji Bhor vs. ITO, Ward 10(1)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The Income Tax Department received information that the assessee, Devidas Bhimaji Bhor, made cash deposits and time deposits in Sharad Sahakari Bank Limited and received contract amounts and commission/brokerage, with TDS deducted under Sections 194C and 194H of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not file the return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer issued notices under Sections 148A, 148, 143(2), and 142(1) of the Act, but the assessee did not respond. The AO invoked Section 144 of the Act and made additions of unexplained cash deposits, time deposits, and business income, assessing the total income at Rs. 1,00,69,973/-. The assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A), which was dismissed. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO?
• 2. Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to substantiate the case with evidences?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Manubhai Dahyabhai Bhoi vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Killick Nixon Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 10(1)(2)

  Mumbai bench

• Surinder Bhandari vs. ITO, Ward 2(3) Ghaziabad

  Delhi bench

• Prathmik Krashi Saka Shakari Samiti Chatholi vs. ITO, Vidisha

  Indore bench

• Anil Ramnarayan Gupta vs. CIT(A), ITO, Ward 1(1) Kalyan

  Mumbai bench

• Kumud Lahu Phadke vs. Income Tax Officer

  Pune bench