Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Nagpur v/s Shri Waman Mahadeorao Sarode

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The Assessing Officer received information that the assessee purchased immovable property in Nagpur for a consideration of `16,35,000 in cash. The assessee did not file an income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer sought an explanation from the assessee regarding the source of cash for the purchase of the property. The assessee filed a return of income for the year 2016-17, declaring income of `2,13,750, but failed to explain the source of the cash payment for the property. The Assessing Officer treated the cash purchases as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and added it to the assessee's income. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who granted full relief. The Revenue appealed to the ITAT, Nagpur Bench.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the statement on the oath of the assessee regarding his source of income?
• 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the contradiction on the date of possession of the land?
• 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not exercising the power under section 250(4) of the IT Act?
• 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Archna Chadha (AY: 2016-17)

• M.N Manjula Vs. The Income Tax Officer

  SMC Bench: Bangalore benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• ITA No. 3826/DEL/2024 ACIT Vs Venus Portfolios Pvt Ltd.

• Navakarnataka Pattin Souharda Sahakari Niyamita Vs. The Income Tax Officer

  SMC Bench, Bangalore benchAY 2022-23Allowed

• Irene Pereira vs. ITO, Ward–1 & TPS

  Bangalore benchAY 2016-17Partly Allowed

• A2Z Waste Management (Ranchi) Limited vs. Dy./ACIT

  Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi benchAY 2013-14Dismissed