Kajal Kumari Seth vs. ITO, Ward-45(2), Kolkata

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Kajal Kumari Seth, filed an Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2014-15 declaring a total income of Rs.2,41,700/-. Her case was selected for scrutiny under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Assessing Officer found unaccounted income of Rs.1,50,44,516/- from sundry creditors and issued a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee failed to provide a satisfactory reply, leading the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment by passing an order under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income at Rs.1,52,86,216/- with an addition of Rs.1,50,44,516/- under section 68 of the Act. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), which dismissed the appeal for lack of satisfactory clarification and documentary evidence. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, claiming that the addition was unjustified as it represented the opening balance of sundry creditors carried forward from earlier years.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition of Rs.1,50,44,516/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is justified.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Elite Packaging vs Income Tax Officer Ward 17(3)(1)

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2020-21Allowed

• DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Hindustan EPC Company Ltd Vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• ACIT, Circle-22(1), New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjeev Malhotra

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2005-06Allowed

• Chiranjilal Tea Company Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Shri. Ranjeet Jain, Prop ashok Cotton Traders Apmc Yard, Ranebennur, Haveri – 581 115. Vs. ITO, Ward – 2, Haveri.

  C Bench, Bangalore benchAY 2012-13Allowed