Muthalif Moideen vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Muthaliff Moideen, is engaged in the business of trading in chappals and shoes. During the demonetization period, he deposited Rs.2,60,27,500/- in specified bank notes (SBNs) in his bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the cash balance held on 08/11/2016 of Rs.18,81,217/- and added the difference of Rs.2,41,46,500/- as unexplained income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee appealed against this addition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who confirmed the addition. The assessee further appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which deleted the addition and allowed the appeal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition of Rs.2,41,46,500/- as unexplained income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is sustainable?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Rangasamy Vimala vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

  Chennai bench

• Sridharpur Co-Operative Bank Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Burdwan

  Kolkata ‘C’ Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Shakti Sales Corporation Vs ITO, Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai

• Deepak V. Hardeep Motors v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

  Chennai bench

• ITA 384/JODH/2024

  Jodhpur bench

• Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Chennai bench