New Arbuda Builders vs. ACIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, New Arbuda Builders, a firm engaged in civil construction, filed its Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 31.08.2017, admitting a total income of Rs.1,20,92,670/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment due to an abnormal increase in cash deposits during the demonetization period and a higher turnover reported in the Service Tax Return compared to the Income Tax Return. The Assessing Officer found that the appellant firm deposited Rs.39,00,000/- during the demonetization period and added Rs.18,25,000/- as unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs.91,28,993/- being the difference between the Service Tax Return and Income Tax Return and added as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who confirmed the addition of Rs.18,25,000/- but deleted the addition of Rs.91,28,993/-. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition of Rs.18,25,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act is sustainable in law?
• 2. Whether the addition of Rs.91,28,993/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act is sustainable in law?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Mr. Rakesh v. ITO, Ward-18(3)

  Delhi Bench 'F', Delhi benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Smt. Murugarathinasamy Sangeetha v. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(1), Erode

  Chennai bench

• S. Balaji Mech-Tech Private Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 22 (1), 3696, Sharadhanand Marg, New Delhi.

  Delhi bench

• ITO, Ward-21(1), Room No.220, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Vs M/s Retro Footwear Private Limited

• Income Tax Officer Vs. Hema Arora

• M/s. Bhanu Jewellers Art vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench