Devidass Pritamdas Sahijwani vs. ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, a non-resident, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai, which upheld the order of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had made unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs.24,50,000/- in his HSBC Bank account during the year under consideration. The assessee contended that the cash deposit was unspent gifted money returned by his mother and handicapped brother, who have no other source of income. The assessee requested an opportunity to furnish documentary evidence to support his claim.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Learned CIT(A) has not considered the facts and circumstances of the given case in correct perspective before passing the Order.
• 2. The Learned CIT(A) and Learned Assessing Officer have erred in concluding that cash deposit of Rs.24,50,000/- is unexplained money of the Appellant u/s 69A as source of cash deposit was not known without appreciating that being a non- resident, the Appellant was not required to disclose his foreign income and source of such foreign incomes.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Shri Gurtejpal Singh Somal Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(3)(4), Mumbai

  Mumbai bench

• Shri Pandian Hari Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 11(4), Chennai

• Mr. Rakesh Heeralal Ameta v/s Income Tax Officer, Ward – 33(1)(6), Mumbai

  Mumbai bench

• Mr. Nivrutti Pandurang Bhor Vs. Income Tax Officer

• Rajkumar Mittal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Ranchi

  Ranchi bench

• Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. ITO

  Delhi Bench ‘E’ benchAY 2017-18Allowed