Dilip Pinjumal Ramtri Vs. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Dilip Pinjumal Ramtri, did not file any return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on information about unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee claimed that the cash deposits were made by his employer, Mr. Deepak Rawachand Narayani, and subsequently withdrawn. The employer submitted a consent letter accepting the cash deposits. However, the employer did not respond to a notice under section 133(6) of the Act, leading to an addition of Rs.27,66,500/- as unexplained cash deposits. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but was unsuccessful. The assessee argued that the peak credit balance in the bank account did not exceed Rs.6,01,141/-.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition for unexplained cash deposits made by the Assessing Officer is justified?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Rabiul Islam Gain Vs. ITO, Ward 49(1) and Tapan Kumar Pal Vs. DCIT, Circle 49(1)

  Kolkata benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Case

  Ahmedabad bench

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

  Mumbai bench

• Rakesh Divedi vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench ‘E’ benchAY 2009-10Allowed

• Anuradha Reddy vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudivada

  Visakhapatnam bench

• Sri Guru Thipperudraswamy Devasthana vs. The Income Tax Officer