Late Pratapsingh Kartarsingh Walia vs. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee (Late Pratapsingh Kartarsingh Walia, legal heir Mrs. Amarjeetkaur Pratapsingh Walia) was proprietor of Walia Roadlines and engaged in transportation business. The case was reopened based on information received on AIMS modules/ITD system that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.1,54,84,535/- in various banks and earned interest from credit societies of Rs.5,67,077/- during the FY 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14. The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2013-14 on 22.12.2016 declaring total income of Rs.9,58,680/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment by computing the income of the assessee as Rs.1,19,80,046/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A) there was non-compliance of notice(s) of hearing and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and endorsed the findings of the Ld. AO. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) reads as under : '3.3 I find that the Appellant has chosen not to attend or the any written submission in pursuance to his own appeal therefore I am of the view that the government cannot waste its own resources in time and money by providing endless opportunities to pursue taxpayers their own appeals, especially when numbers of pending appeals are high. The more opportunities to a particular taxpayer are always at the cost of opportunity to other taxpayer of getting his appeal heard early. Accordingly, I presume that the Appellant is not inter…

Legal Issues

• 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO and the CIT(A) was not justified in making / upholding addition of Rs.1,01,31,000/- on account of undisclosed cash credits in various bank account of the appellant.
• 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the leaned AO and CIT(A) was not justified in allowing/upholding 7 days withdrawal preceding to cash deposit as a source of cash deposits.
• 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law and alternatively once deposits in the bank account are held to be from business carried on by the assessee, the normal net profit percentage as per section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be treated as income for assessment.
• 4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO and CIT(A) was not justified in making/upholding addition of Rs.5,50,032/- on account of fixed deposits.
• 5. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in the alternative the addition of Rs.5,50,032/- is not sustainable as appellant has sufficient source for such deposits.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Sachidanand Rai vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Allahabad bench

• Dindayal Verma vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tinsukia

  Guwahati bench

• Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi vs. Income Tax Officer

  Allahabad bench

• Shriram Bagavathyappan vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Gurgaon

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• M/s Bupendra Autotech Industries (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon.

• Bhai Bhai Co vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Siliguri