Mayurkumar Vinodchandra Surani vs ACIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Mayurkumar Vinodchandra Surani, filed his income return for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 31.10.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.43,74,040/-. A survey was conducted under section 133A of the Act on 19.12.2016, revealing that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.88,85,000/- during the demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. The Assessing Officer (AO) was not satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee regarding these cash deposits and made an addition of Rs.88,85,000/- under section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. The assessment was completed on 23.12.2019 at a total income of Rs.1,35,04,286/-. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was partly allowed. The assessee is now in second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against law, equity & justice.
• 2. Whether the assessment order passed by the A.O is bad & illegal as no opportunity was provided to the appellant in spite of specific request of personal hearing or video conferencing.
• 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition made by the Ld.AO u/s.68 r/w 115BBE of the Act of Rs.87,80,000/-.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Similar Judgements

• Manoj Aggarwal Vs ITO Ward -44(2), Delhi-110002

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• The DCIT v. Valco Industries Ltd.

  Chandigarh bench

• Gandaram & Sons Jewellers Pvt Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T.

  Delhi ‘F’ Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Vs. Hindusthan National Glass And Industries Limited

  Kolkata ‘C’ Bench benchAY 2011-12Dismissed

• Mukesh Kumar Agrawal vs ITO Ward 54(5)

  Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Surajmal Garg Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(4), Delhi

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed