ITA no. 1276/Del/2024

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

For the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee filed his return on 21.07.2017, declaring income of Rs. 5,50,050/-. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that during the demonetization period, the assessee had cash deposits of Rs. 8,64,000/-. The assessee explained that out of the total deposit, Rs. 1,40,000/- was deposited in new currency; Rs. 2,44,000/- was kept for facility emergency and household expenses; Rs. 1,57,000/- was cash received from an unidentifiable person; and Rs. 4,63,000/- was cash received from unidentifiable receipts, including vehicle insurance premiums received in cash from various clients. The Assessing Officer accepted the explanation for the deposit of Rs. 1,40,000/- in new currency. However, for the remaining cash deposit of Rs. 7,24,000/-, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation and added the amount to the assessee's income as unexplained income, resulting in a total income of Rs. 12,74,050/-. The assessee appealed against this decision to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in misunderstanding the facts of the case.
• 2. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 724,000.00 in a mechanical and arbitrary manner.
• 3. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in violating the Principles of natural Justice.
• 4. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of section 69A and 115BBE in complete disregard of the intention of the revenue in introducing these provisions.
• 5. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in converting a valid explanation into no explanation at all.
• 6. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in validating the requirement of the Assessing Officer to ask the assessee to provide copies of the insurance policies running into hundreds.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Oriental Vacations and Journeys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Usha Girdharilal Jhunjhunwala Vs. ACIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2021-22Partly Allowed

• The Rasulpur Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. Vs The ITO, Ward-1, Moga

  Amritsar bench

• Sri Guru Thipperudraswamy Devasthana vs. The Income Tax Officer

• Avijit Roy Vs ITO, Ward-23(3), Hooghly

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Smt. Bimla Kaur Multani vs. ITO, Ward Dasuya

  Amritsar bench