Mohd. Sami Alam vs. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

Mohd. Sami Alam, a labour contractor, filed his return of income under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, declaring income at 8% of his gross turnover of Rs. 38,71,339/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) found certain allegedly unverifiable cash deposits amounting to Rs. 9,98,013/- and added this amount to his total income under Section 69A of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) confirmed this addition. Aggrieved by this, the assessee approached the ITAT, arguing that the cash deposits were part of his declared income and that the AO erred in invoking Section 69A. The assessee explained that due to the nature of his business, he had to make cash payments to labourers at work sites, and thus, he could not maintain accurate books of account.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the AO erred in invoking Section 69A of the Act and adding Rs. 9,98,013/- to the assessee's total income.
• 2. Whether the proceedings conducted through the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) were within jurisdiction.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Manubhai Dahyabhai Bhoi vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Dinesh Kumar Singhania Vs. I.T.O., Ward-34(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata 'SMC' Bench benchAY 2016-17Partly Allowed

• Akheto Yepthomi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dimpaur

• Nand Lal Popli, Vs. The D.C.I.T.

  Chandigarh Bench benchAY 2007-08, 2009-10Partly Allowed

• Shokat Ali Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-60(7)

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Javed Munir Khan Vs. ITO 26(1)(4)

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18Dismissed