Laxmanji Khodaji Solanki (Thakor) vs. ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Laxmanji Khodaji Solanki, did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Based on information that the assessee had purchased immovable property for Rs. 4,26,00,000/-, the case was reopened under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not respond to any notices issued to him. The Assessing Officer added the entire amount to the income of the assessee under Section 69 of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable, stating that the assessee had not paid any advance tax. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed?
• 2. Whether the reopening of assessment u/s 148 is bad in law?
• 3. Whether Ld. NFAC erred in making addition of Rs. 4,26,00,000/- u/s 69?
• 4. Whether Ld. NFAC ought to have considered the fact that appellant neither sold any land nor received any consideration?
• 5. Whether Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in invoking section 249(4) of the Act?
• 6. Whether Ld. NFAC failed to pass order as per the provision of section 250(6) of the Act?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society vs ITO, Ward 1, Hisar

  Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi benchAY 2014-15Allowed

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

  Ahmedabad bench

• Hari Mohan and Sons Vs. The Income-tax Officer

  Delhi 'B' Bench benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar Vs. ITO, Ward 22 (2)(1)

• M/s Gyanchand Poddar HUF vs. ITO Ward 43(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2013-2014Allowed

• Harendra Sharma vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Gwalior

  Agra bench