Maroofali I Shaikh vs. ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Maroofali I Shaikh, deposited a large sum of Rs.1,56,92,000/- in his savings bank account during FY 2014-15. He did not file his income return for FY 2014-15 as required under section 139 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, a notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 31.3.2021. The assessee did not respond to the notice or file his income return. The case was transferred to the ReFAC(AU) on 10.12.2021, and notices under section 142(1) were issued, but no reply was received from the assessee. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order, treating the entire deposit as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and adding it to the assessee's total income. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal for non-payment of advance tax. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal is justified?
• 2. Whether the Assessing Officer correctly treated the cash deposit as unexplained money under section 69A?
• 3. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) correctly dismissed the appeal for non-payment of advance tax?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Sanjeev Kumar Jindal Vs. ITO

  Delhi bench

• State Board of Technical Education and Training AP vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

  Visakhapatnam bench

• Purnima Priyadarshi Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Biharsharif

  Patna Bench at Kolkata benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• CHETNA SUNDARAM VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 70(1), NEW DELHI

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Rajbir Singh Vs Income Tax Officer, Sonipat, Haryana

• Sikha Datta vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer

  SMC Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2015-16Allowed