Tamraparani Enterprises and Realty Pvt Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 3(1), Chennai
Parties Involved
Facts Summary
The assessee did not file its returns of income for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20. The assessments were subsequently reopened on the basis of information received by the Department indicating that the assessee had made cash deposits in its bank account during the relevant assessment years. Since the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued in the course of the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded ex-parte and completed the assessments by making additions under section 69A of the Act in respect of the cash deposits, treating the same as unexplained money. For the assessment year 2019-20, sales reported under GSTR-3B of Rs.3,18,72,836/- was added to total income apart from cash deposits made.…
Decision in favour of
Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue
Legal Issues
- 1. Quantum addition in ITA Nos. 647, 649 & 651/CHNY/2026 for assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20
- 2. Penalty levied by the AO under section 271AAC(1) of the Act
- 3. Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 1356/CHNY/2026, AY 2019-20
Judgment Outcome
Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.
Similar Judgements
DCIT, Central Circle 2(3) Vs. Anil Kumar Kasera
Kolkata benchAY 2017-18 to 2019-20DismissedITA 2229 & 2230/DEL/2026
Delhi benchThe Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society vs ITO, Ward 1, Hisar
Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi benchAY 2016-17, 2017-18AllowedRakesh Bhatt Vs ACIT
Sh. Kewal Krishan Kumar Vs. ACIT
Delhi benchPERIYA AGOUNDER RAMASAMY v. ITO Ward-1(6), SALEM