Dilip Kumar Sah Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Dilip Kumar Sah, filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.06.2024. The original assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 21.11.2019, assessing the income at Rs.5,17,730/-. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) observed that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 8.22 lacs in “Specified Bank Notes” (SBNs) during the demonetization period and had disclosed additional commission receipts of Rs.26,50,935/-. The Pr.CIT held that the AO had failed to assess business income of Rs. 23,15,529/- from sales of Rs. 2,16,33,201/-. The AO, in his order dated 16.03.2023, made an addition of Rs.23,51,529/- and determined the income at Rs.28,69,259/-. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), but the appeal was dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution. The assessee then appealed to the tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the ex-parte Appellate Order passed by the CIT(A) is justified?
• 2. Whether the addition of Rs.23,51,529/- as business income is justified?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Shakti Sales Corporation Vs ITO, Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai

• Shri Gyan Chand Tatiya Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur

  Raipur bench

• Sridharpur Co-Operative Bank Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Burdwan

  Kolkata ‘C’ Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Rangasamy Vimala vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

  Chennai bench

• TamilNadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

  Chennai bench

• Deepak V. Hardeep Motors v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

  Chennai bench