Ishtiaq Ahmad Rather v. ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine whether the cash deposit was made from disclosed sources. The appellant, engaged in the business of trading in hardware and ceramics items, filed an e-return on 16/05/2016 declaring a total presumptive income of Rs. 5,20,912/- under section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. The case was reopened based on information from HDFC Bank regarding cash deposits of Rs. 11,95,000/- and Rs. 86,58,000/- in two bank accounts. The assessment was completed on 12.12.2018 by making an addition of Rs. 98,53,000/- under section 68 of the Act. The appellant appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the addition and penalty imposed.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO under section 68?
• 2. Whether the penalty imposed under section 271(l)(c) is justified?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• HETAAL JASWANTRAI PAREKH Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

  Mumbai bench

• JASMEET SINGH WALIA VS. ITO, WARD 58(8), NEW DELHI

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Mohd. Ikram Vs. ITO

  SMC Bench, Delhi benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Active Brothers vs Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp Ward-9(1), Chennai

• Maheshkumar Laljidas Patel Vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Nand Lal Popli, Vs. The D.C.I.T.

  Chandigarh Bench benchAY 2007-08, 2009-10Partly Allowed