Jaydip Dhar vs. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Jaydip Dhar, filed a return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,03,720/-. His case was selected for limited scrutiny due to large cash deposits into his bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were replied to by the assessee. The assessment was completed on 27.12.2018 with three additions: unexplained investment of Rs. 17,81,000/-, unexplained money of Rs. 10 lacs under section 69B, and a difference in purchase price and stamp value of Rs. 9,65,850/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b). The assessee challenged only the unexplained investment of Rs. 17,81,000/- before the Tribunal, arguing it was not part of the limited scrutiny and thus beyond the AO's jurisdiction.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition of Rs. 17,81,000/- as unexplained investment is valid under section 69C of the Act.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Zahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh v/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(4)

• Ragini Bhadauria v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(1), New Delhi-110001

  Delhi Bench ‘SMC’, New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Vikas Aggarwal vs ITO

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

• Arnab Kumar Goswami vs. ITO, Ward-62(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Kundan Jayantilal Bhatt Vs. ITO Circle-4

• Poonam Lakhmani vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2020-21Allowed