Parlikar Cement vs. Ward 3(2)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Parlikar Cement, a partnership firm engaged in the wholesale distribution of cement, filed its income return on 24.10.2017. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.1,45,24,000/- during the demonetization period in its bank account. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order on 30.12.2019, declaring total income at Rs.1,46,55,890/-, after making an addition on the impugned amount under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as 'unexplained cash deposit'. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was upheld on 31.01.2024. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the CIT Appeal erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,45,24,000/- towards the cash deposits in bank account during the demonetization period?
• 2. Whether the CIT Appeal erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making the additions u/s. 69A of the cash deposit duly reflected in books of accounts?
• 3. Whether the CIT Appeal erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without the learned Assessing Officer rejecting the books of accounts?
• 4. Whether the CIT Appeal erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in rejecting the explanations as submitted by the appellant?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• DCIT, Circle-49(1), Kolkata vs. Chiranjeet Kundu

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma Vs. ACIT

  Jaipur bench

• Mangat Ram vs ITO

  Delhi bench

• RAHUL JAIN VS. ITO, WARD 59(8), NEW DELHI

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Anil Bansal vs ITO

  Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Seema Devi Jain Vs. ACIT

  Delhi Bench ‘G’ New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Allowed