Mohanrao Rangarao Gorantla vs. Dy. CIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y 2018-19 on 31/10/2018 declaring total income of Rs.67,96,520/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 8/2/2020, and the total income was assessed at Rs.4,33,22,000/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition/disallowance of Rs.3,69,35,482/- on the ground that the income/receipts amounting to Rs.3,69,35,482/- which was reduced while computing income under the Schedule BP for considering under the head 'Income from Other Sources' was not consistent with the income shown under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A), but neither appeared nor filed any details. The learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds for non-prosecution but did not discuss the issue on merits.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer are sustainable?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Syntel Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2018-2019Partly Allowed

• Shree Revanasiddeshwara Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Rampur vs. The Income Tax Officer

  SMC Bench, Bangalore benchAY 2019-20Partly Allowed

• Deepshikha Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata

  KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Bharat Ranchhodbhai Bharvad Legal Heir of Late Maniben Ranchhodbhai Ahir Vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Aphidalin Syiemlieh vs. ITO, Ward-1, Shillong

  Guwahati bench

• Praveen Halagappa Mariyappa (HUF) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Shivamogga

  Bangalore bench