Manoj Hemchand Mundaware vs. ITO, Ward 2, Malegaon

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Manoj Hemchand Mundaware, did not file his income return for the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the assessee did not respond to. Consequently, the Assessing Officer computed the assessee's income at Rs.1,12,95,870/- by making an addition under section 69A of the Act due to unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The CIT(A) / NFAC sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer in an ex-parte order. The assessee filed an appeal against this order, citing medical reasons and lack of education as grounds for non-compliance.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Prakash Jewellers vs. ACIT 32 (2)

  Mumbai Bench ‘C’, Mumbai benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Poongavanam Elumalai Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-9(1), Chennai

• Sanam Jignesh Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-19(3)(1)

• Srikrishan Agarwal vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Gangtok

• Vinod Kumar vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(2), Village Nagla, Sukhi Post, Firozabad. Mustafabad, Jasrana, Firozabad – 205 147 (Uttar Pradesh)

  Agra bench

• Jermel's Accademy Vs. I.T.O., Ward -1(4), Siliguri

  Kolkata 'A' Bench benchAY 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18Allowed