Jaishri Pande vs. The Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Jaishri Pande, had not filed her return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer noticed two entries relating to purchase of immovable property and issued a notice under section 148. The assessment was completed ex parte under section 147 read with section 144, treating the aggregate amount of ₹2,20,00,000 as unexplained investment under section 69. Consequentially, penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F were initiated. The assessee challenged the assessment and the penalty orders before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), but the appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals can be condoned?
• 2. Whether the quantum addition of ₹2,20,00,000 made under section 69 is sustainable?
• 3. Whether the penalties levied under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F are valid?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society vs ITO, Ward 1, Hisar

  Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi benchAY 2016-17, 2017-18Allowed

• Vidya Raju Sanap vs. Ito Ward 32(2)(1), Mumbai

  Mumbai bench

• ITA Nos. 1629 to 1632 & 1654/Bang/2024

  Bengaluru “C” Bench, Bengaluru benchAY 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19Allowed

• Palwinder Singh v. Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

  Amritsar bench

• POOJA PRABHAKAR Vs. ITO NCW 15 (1) CHENNAI

• The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society vs ITO, Ward 1, Hisar

  Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi benchAY 2014-15Allowed