Gajalaxmi Pharma vs. The Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Gajalaxmi Pharma, filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer found cash deposits in the accounts of the assessee during the demonetization period. The assessee did not furnish any details against various notices issued under section 143(2) or 142(1) or show-cause notice under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee made cash deposits to the tune of ₹.55,88,000/- in its accounts during the demonetization period, out of which SBNs deposited were to the tune of ₹.47,57,500/-. The Assessing Officer treated the total SBNs deposit as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer for non-submission of any documentary evidence in support of the assessee's claim.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have been served notices to the new e-mail ID?
• 2. Whether there was proper compliance before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with relevant documentary evidences?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

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

• Shokat Ali Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-60(7)

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

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

• Amarkumar Anupbhai Desai vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Manmohan Pravinchandra Madani vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

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

  Kolkata ‘C’ Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed