Krishnappa Paramesh vs. ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated based on information that the appellant had made a large cash deposit of 1,86,08,900/- in his bank account during the demonetization period. Notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the appellant. In response, the appellant filed submissions through e-proceedings and furnished details in response to a show cause notice. However, the appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation or documentary evidence, leading the Assessing Officer (AO) to complete the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by making an addition of Rs.62,52,000/- under section 69A of the Act. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), but the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The appellant then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the First Appellate Authority (FAA) erred by stating that the appellant did not respond to notices with the intention of hiding particulars.
• 2. Whether the FAA erred by passing the order without verifying all submissions comprehensively, amounting to a non-speaking order.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Avadhesh Kumar Panday Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Durgapur

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• Mr. Balram Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Circle-3, Nashik

• Gurkripa Enterprises Vs. ITO, Ward-40(3), Kolkata

  Kolkata 'SMC' Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Dhansamridhi Finance Private Limited (Amalgamated Company) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

  Kolkata bench

• Praveen Halagappa Mariyappa (HUF) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Shivamogga

  Bangalore bench

• Sangeeta Motilal Shahani Vs. ITO 27(3)(1)

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2013-14Allowed