Late Anil Kumar Chakravarti v. The ITO-3(2) Hardoi

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The Department received a non-PAN AIR based information that cash amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- had been deposited in the saving bank account of the assessee. The case was selected for assessment/reassessment of income/loss under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to examine the source of cash deposit. The assessee filed his return of income, declaring a total income of Rs.2,33,110/-. Notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer passed the order assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,82,120/- after making addition of Rs.15,00,000/- under section 69 of the Act. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed for non-compliance. The assessee then approached the Tribunal challenging the action of the NFAC.…

Legal Issues

• 1. CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte order ignoring the adjournment application and without giving proper opportunity of being heard.
• 2. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law as the initiation of re-assessment proceeding, its continuation/culmination vide order 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law.
• 3. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.15,00,000/- as Unexplained Investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deposited in bank account, which does not relate to the appellant.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Jagdish Muljibhai Makvana Vs. Income Tax Officer

  Rajkot bench

• Yogender Kumar Sharma vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

  Delhi bench

• Rohit Manchanda Vs. ITO

  Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Ram Kumar v. The ITO

  Chandigarh bench

• Shuklatirth Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs. ITO(E)

  Ahmedabad bench

• Apni Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Noida

  Delhi bench