ITA Nos.371 & 375/Rjt/2023 AYs 10-11

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Jaydev Bawalal Thummar, filed his income return for the assessment year 2010-11 on 31.03.2011, declaring a total income of Rs.1,59,400/-. The assessing officer observed that the assessee had maintained a bank account with ICICI Bank, Rajkot, and two other bank accounts with Development Credit Bank, Rajkot, in which cash and cheques were deposited and substantial withdrawals of aggregate amount of Rs.6,62,53,505/- were made. The assessee's case was reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a notice under section 148 was issued on 18.03.2015. The assessee filed Audit Report for the A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 and Income tax returns for the A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 but did not mention that he was filing the return of income for the year under consideration in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The assessing officer issued a notice under section 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act on 15.06.2016, stating that it is mandatory for the assessee to file the return of income in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The assessee did not file the return of income. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had savings bank account and had made transactions of Rs.6,62,53,505/-, during the relevant previous year. The assessee filed Audit Report for the A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 and Income Tax Returns for the A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11, however, as per Assessing Officer, total amount of transactions of Rs.6,62,53,505/- remaine…

Legal Issues

• 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in restricting the addition made on account of unexplained deposits in bank accounts of Rs.6,62,53,505/- to the extent of Rs.54,06,911/-
• 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the assessing officer.
• 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding reopening of assessment u/s. 147 by ld. assessing officer on the basis of insufficient, incorrect, invalid and vague reasons recorded for reopening without any due application of mind.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Amancherla Venkata Prabhakar Rao vs. Income Tax Officer

  Hyderabad bench

• Manish Malik vs DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

  Delhi bench

• Chintan Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. The ITO

  Surat bench

• Narayanagr Palanisamy vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-4(1), Coimbatore

  Chennai bench

• Maithan Ceramic Limited vs ACIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata benchAY 2011-2012Dismissed

• Akheto Yepthomi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dimpaur