ITA 1428/BANG/2026

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The Assessee, Sunil Kumar, filed an appeal against the reassessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer. The reassessment was initiated to verify the Assessee's purchase of a motor vehicle, the source of funds for such purchase, and the interest income earned by the Assessee. The Assessee had declared income under the presumptive taxation scheme and reported a gross turnover. However, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹32,87,500 based on cash deposits in the Assessee's bank account, which the Assessee claimed were loan repayments from customers. The Assessee appealed against this addition, arguing that it was made on an issue that did not form the basis for reopening the assessment. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to make the addition, but the order was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer did not examine the cash book provided by the Assessee. The ITAT restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to make the addition for cash deposits in the reassessment proceedings.
• 2. Whether the order of the Assessing Officer is sustainable.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• ITO, Delhi vs. Shann Jewellers

  Delhi Bench ‘A’ benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Sanjay Aggarwal vs. DCIT

  Delhi bench

• Punit Jain vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 51(5)

  Delhi Bench 'F', Delhi benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• M/s Amber Enterprises India Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT

  Chandigarh bench

• DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Chawla Gems Pvt. Ltd.

  "B" Bench, Delhi benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Mohd. Sami Alam vs. Income Tax Officer

  SMC Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2013-14Partly Allowed