Prakash Popatlal Parmar v. ITO
Parties Involved
Facts Summary
The assessee, Prakash Popatlal Parmar, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 on 12.07.2019, declaring a total income of Rs.5,42,920/-. The assessee's case was reopened following due process after it was discovered that the assessee had made a cash transaction for the purchase of office No.306 in Project name 'RK IMPERIA' developed by M/s. IMPERIA ENTERPRISE. Notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2023, and subsequent notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were also issued. The assessee had shown business income from a proprietary concern in the original return and the 148 return. Data/material was seized from a key individual, Girish Vanjani, who is responsible for the data entry work of accounting for the RK group.…
Legal Issues
- 1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts that upholding the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- u/s.69 as unexplained investment is wholly unjustified, perverse, and without any legally sustainable evidence.
- 2. The impugned order is bad in law, without jurisdiction, and liable to be quashed as the reopening u/s 148 was based on vague, incomplete, and non-incriminating information from a search on a third party (RK Group), without establishing a live link to the assessee's income escaping assessment.
- 3. Mere presumption based on third-party documents without confrontation and cross-examination violates principles of natural justice. The assessee was not provided full opportunity to cross-examine key persons whose statements were relied upon.
Similar Judgements
Amita Jain vs ITO WARD-36(1)
Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2013-14Partly AllowedJora Ram Mali Vs. ACIT, Circle – 4(2)
Arvind Khetaram Purohit vs DCIT Central Circle
Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18 & 2018-19AllowedWaaneep Solar Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer, Central Circle – 2(4)
DCIT vs. Meenakshi Khanna
ACIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. JBM Projects and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd
Delhi Bench benchAY 2015-16Dismissed