Income Tax Officer Ward 11(1) Hyderabad Vs. Shri Suresh Samineni

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Shri Suresh Samineni, made cash deposits of Rs.1,02,91,000/- during the demonetization period in his bank accounts held with Adarsh Urban Cooperative Bank, ICICI Bank Annasalai, and ICICI Bank. The assessee did not file his return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 explaining the source of these credits. A notice under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 24/11/2017, but there was no compliance from the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte under section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 18/12/2018 and determined the total income at Rs.2,98,48,484/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT (A), but did not provide any reply to the notices, leading to the disposal of the appeal by the CIT (A). The Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the CIT (A) correctly estimated the income from the assessee's bank deposits during the demonetization period.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Similar Judgements

• Rajesh Kumar Dalmia Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Income Tax Officer, Ward-51(5), Delhi vs. Vipin Mittal

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Suresh Kumar Agarwal

  SMC Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2017-2018Partly Allowed

• Chittipolu Srinivas vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Nalgonda

  Hyderabad bench

• Rajendra Gadhia vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• AJAY PRATAP RAMAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(5), GHAZIABAD

  DELHI BENCH benchAY 2017-18Allowed