Mr. Suresh Laxman Padhye vs. The I.T.O. – 26(3)(3)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee filed a return of income on 27/07/2012 declaring total income at Rs.3,84,880/-. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from ITS, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.13,31,900/- in the Jalkalyan Sahkari Bank Limited and made fixed deposits of Rs.25,41,075/- Further, the assessee has made fixed deposit of Rs.2,70,796/- with Karnataka Bank Ltd and fixed deposit of Rs.23,67,889/- with Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. According to the Ld. AO, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after recording the reasons that the information received as above was analyzed with the original return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year under consideration and it was found that the assessee has shown a receipt of Rs.6,84,250/- and shown a profit of Rs.3,59,104/- onlyin his profit and loss account. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee from time to time. The Ld. AO, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, completed the assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s 147 of the Act by making following additionson the ground that the assessee has failed to explain the source of deposits: - i. Unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act - Rs.15,58,901/- ii. Unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act - Rs.46,09,108/-…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order dated 13.05.2024 upholding the action of the Ld. Income Tax Officer-26(3)(3), Mumbai in passing the reassessment order dated 17.12.2018 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 determining the total income of the Appellant at Rs.65,52,889/- without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
• 2. Appellate Order passed without providing an appropriate opportunity of being heard is bad in law.
• 3. Addition by treating the deposits in the bank accounts as unexplained money is unjustified-Rs.15,58,901/-. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,58.901/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of cash deposited in the bank account of the Appellant, by invoking Section 69A of the Act, without considering the facts that the Appellant was not required to maintain books of accounts as his income needs to be computed on presumptive basis.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), R. No. 389A, 3rd Floor, CR Building, IP Estate, Delhi 110001 Vs. Jindal Poly Films Limited, 19th K.M. Hapur, Bulandshahar Road, P.O. Gulaothi, Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh 203408

  Delhi Bench 'C', Delhi benchAY 2012-13Dismissed

• ITA NO. 2771/Del/2024

  Delhi bench

• Jagdish Chandra Dhariwal vs. ACIT

  Jodhpur bench

• Sunil Ambalavelil Raju Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-60(5), New Delhi

• Dilbagh Singh vs. The ITO

  Chandigarh bench

• ITA No 523 of 2024 Madhavapeddy Sudhakar

  Hyderabad bench