Kuldeep Makhija Vs ITO
Parties Involved
Facts Summary
The assessee, Kuldeep Makhija, did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 and was identified as a 'non-filer'. Upon receiving information that Makhija purchased an immovable property valued at ₹30.00 Lakhs and earned a salary of ₹19.77 Lakhs, the case was reopened for assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Despite multiple notices, Makhija failed to provide a return of income or explain the nature and source of his investment. The Income Tax Officer proceeded ex-parte and completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Makhija appealed the assessment order to the first appellate authority, which was dismissed as barred by limitation. Makhija then filed an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the dismissal of his first appeal.…
Decision in favour of
Revenue
Legal Issues
- 1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned?
- 2. Whether the addition of salary income was justified?
Judgment Outcome
Decided in favour of Revenue.
Similar Judgements
Tapaswini Mangesh Mhaske Vs ITO
Pune benchKambli Prakash Dattu Vs National Faceless e-Asstt. Centre
Pune benchShri Balaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs ITO (E)
Pune benchShashikant Yashwant Chaudhari Vs ITO
Pune benchShailendra Singh Negi vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
Delhi benchITA no. 2845/Del/2023
Delhi bench