Prateek Sharma v. Income Tax Officer Ward (2)(3)(5)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The appeal was filed by the assessee, Prateek Sharma, against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee argued that the order was bad in law and on facts, and that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the reassessment proceedings, confirming the addition, and passing a nonspeaking order. The assessee also contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.22,69,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained payment, without any cogent evidence establishing such payment. The assessee further argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding/allowing initiation of penalty proceedings and levy of interest, which were unjustified, excessive, and consequential in nature.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and on facts?
• 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the reassessment proceedings?
• 3. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition?
• 4. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.22,69,500/- made by the Assessing Officer?
• 5. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding/allowing initiation of penalty proceedings and levy of interest?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Bajrang Lal Jangir vs. ACIT

  Jaipur bench

• Bhanwarlal Pareek vs DCIT

  Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• Udai Parnami vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur

  Jaipur bench

• Raju Sitaram Agrawal vs. ITO Ward-3(5)

  Mumbai bench

• Himan Jayantbhai Parikh Vs ITO, AY- 2017-18

  Ahmedabad bench

• Nissim Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs Asst. CIT, Circle 10(3)(1)

  Mumbai bench