Jagdish Amrutlal Thakar vs. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Jagdish Amrutlal Thakar, a 65-year-old farmer from a remote area in Patan, Gujarat, had large cash deposits in his bank account which were not explained. The Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 142(1), 133(6), and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but the assessee did not respond. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 12,73,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-appearance and lack of supporting evidence. The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, supported by additional evidence including agricultural income records and financial statements.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the CIT(A) erred by failing to consider the documents submitted by the appellant?
• 2. Whether the penalty demand of Rs. 5,92,000/- charged under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is sustainable?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• M/s Shring Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT/DCIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarnagar

  Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi benchAY 2012-13Partly Allowed

• Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT

  Delhi "G" Bench benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Jagdish Lal, Prop. M/s Jagdish Cycle Store, Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani-127306 Vs Income-tax Officer, Charkhi Dadri

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Sh. Mukesh Khurana vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2008-09Allowed

• H Venkatesh Reddy Vs. The Income Tax Officer

  'C' Bench, Bangalore benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Smt. Dayawanti Devi Vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench ‘B’ New Delhi benchAY 2005-06Allowed