Mahesh Narsinghani vs. ITO 28(2)(1)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Mahesh Narsinghani, filed his return of income electronically on 06.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. Based on information that the assessee had deposited substantial cash in his bank accounts, the case was reopened and a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on 09.04.2021. The assessee did not file any return in response to the notice under section 148 nor did he file any reply to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer passed an order under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Act on 22.05.2023, making an addition of Rs. 28,59,760/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE towards cash deposits in Bank of Baroda, J&K Bank, and Kotak Mahindra Bank. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A), NFAC), Delhi. The CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal but dismissed it for non-prosecution and on merits due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee then filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Improper dismissal for non-prosecution due to miscommunication with the Authorized Representative.
• 2. Cash deposits were routine and business-linked.
• 3. Improper invocation of section 69A.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Revenue.

Similar Judgements

• AJAY PRATAP RAMAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(5), GHAZIABAD

  DELHI BENCH benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Rajesh Kumar Dalmia Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Sanjaysinh Mahida Vs. ITO and Hitendrasinh Mahida Vs. CIT

  Ahmedabad bench

• Gautambhai Nansinh Chauhan Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(1) Petlad

  Ahmedabad bench

• DCIT vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

• M/s. Sanjay Enterprises Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Raichur

  ‘B’ Bench : Bangalore benchAY 2017-18Allowed