Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(3)(1) vs Raashi Sawhney

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessment was completed under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the Assessing Officer (AO) brought to tax a sum of Rs. 8,81,25,000/- under sections 69 and 115BBE of the Act as 'unexplained investments'. The AO did so because the assessee, Raashi Sawhney, failed to explain the sources of such investments during the assessment proceedings. During the appellate proceedings, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi deleted the whole of the addition and allowed relief to the assessee. The Revenue is in appeal against this deletion, and the assessee has also taken certain grounds in her cross-objection.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) justified the admission of documentary evidence other than the evidence produced during the course of proceedings before the assessing officer.
• 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) justified to allow the appeal of the assessee on the addition made of Rs. 8,81,25,000/- in the assessment order.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Lakshi Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited Vs ITO, Ward-27(1), Haldia/WBG-W-(176(1)

• The Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/s Kurele Packaging Pvt Ltd

• Manisha Kamalkar Sadavarte vs. Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai “H(SMC)” Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Pravesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs ITO, Ward-62(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2021-2022Allowed

• ITO, Ward-27(1), Haldia Vs. H Port Emp Co Socy Limited

  Kolkata 'A' Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3), Kolkata Vs. Abha Fuels Private Limited

  Kolkata ‘A’ Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2012-13Dismissed