ITA No 838 of 2024 Raghavendra Bacha

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Shri Raghavendra Bacha, is an individual who did not file his return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Based on specific information flagged by the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Consequently, the assessment was reopened under section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. An order was passed on 27/03/2023, and a notice under section 148 was issued on the same date. The assessee filed a return of income on 27/04/2023, admitting a total income of Rs.2,57,410/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed cash deposits into AXIS Bank and Vijaya Bank Accounts and called upon the assessee to explain the source of these deposits. The assessee claimed that the deposits were from his business of trading in building materials. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation due to the lack of evidence, such as VAT/GST Registration Numbers, copies of returns filed under GST, and details of purchase and sales. The Assessing Officer made an addition towards the cash deposits of Rs.18,42,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A and brought it to tax under section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition made towards cash deposits as unexplained money is justified?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Dinesh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon, Haryana

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• ITO VS ANNAMALAI

• DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Dadu Textile LLP

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• M/s Blackstone Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward 5(1)

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2016-17 & 2018-19Allowed

• Udayachal Goregaon Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(4), Mumbai

  Mumbai bench

• Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(3), New Delhi