Kesaram Chatararamji Coudhary Vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(1)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Kesaram Chatararamji Coudhary, is engaged in the business of running a general store. For the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee did not file any return of income. The Assessing Officer noticed cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee during the demonetisation period and issued notices under sections 142(1) and 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee failed to comply with these notices, leading the Assessing Officer to treat the cash deposits as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act. The appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was dismissed ex parte due to non-compliance by the assessee.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in adding the sum of Rs. 26,51,401/- as unexplained money income under section 69A of the Act.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Shakti Sales Corporation Vs ITO, Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai

• Satya Pal Shiv Kumar Vs ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

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

• Garrah SKUS Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bankura

  Kolkata ‘B’ Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2018-19Partly Allowed

• Shri Biluve Dharme Prasanna Vs. The Income Tax Officer

  SMC-‘C’ Bench : Bangalore benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Lakhmi Chand Khushiramani vs. Income Tax Officer

  Agra bench