Harish Sharma, Proprietor M/s Shekhar Textile Industries v. The ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee filed his original return of income on 04/07/2011 declaring total income of Rs. 2,47,987/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by recording reasons under section 148 of the Act dt. 28/03/2018 wherein the Assessing Officer (AO) stated that he had reasons to believe that transactions amounting to Rs. 64,00,000/- made by the assessee in his bank account had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The assessee filed his return of income and requested for supply of copy of the reasons which were duly supplied to the assessee. However, there were no objections filed to the reasons so recorded during the course of assessment proceedings. Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for the necessary information and documentation from the assessee to explain the source of deposits in his bank account. The AO referred to the bank statement of the assessee and noted that the actual credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee were to the tune of Rs. 28,31,000/- instead of Rs. 64,00,000/- as initially mentioned in the reasons so recorded. In absence of any explanation furnished by the assessee, the AO brought the same to tax under section 69A of the Act which on appeal has been confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and against the said findings, the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening of the case u/s 148 as there was no proper reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment.
• 2. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition on merits to the tune of Rs. 28,31,000/- as unexplained money.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Hansraj Vs Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Partly Allowed

• Ras Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer, Ward -59(2), New Delhi-110001

  Delhi Bench ‘SMC’, New Delhi benchAY 2012-13Partly Allowed

• Bhai Bhai Co vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Siliguri

• Navnirman Infracon Pvt ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

• Smt. Sneha Brahma, Legal Representative of Late Shyamal Kumar Brahma Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Raiganj

  Kolkata ‘D’ Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2013-14Partly Allowed

• Bhushan Vasant Parelkar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai