Purnima Priyadarshi Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Biharsharif

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

A notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was issued on 15.03.2018 requiring the assessee to file the return of income, but the assessee failed to do so. During FY 2016-17, a sum of Rs. 14,57,500/- was deposited in cash in Allahabad Bank, Main Branch, Biharsharif during the demonetization period. Since the return of income was not filed, the source of this cash deposit remained unexplained. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 3,15,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and considered the rest of the cash deposit as the assessee’s turnover, subjecting it to an 8% net profit, which amounted to Rs. 2,67,254/-. The total income was assessed at Rs. 5,82,254/- under section 144 of the Act. The assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who dismissed the appeal on 31.03.2024. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition made by the appellate commissioner is bad and illegal for not providing proper opportunity and not considering the evidence and documents available on record.
• 2. Whether the dismissal of appeal on the ground of non-prosecution is bad and arbitrary.
• 3. Whether the order passed by the appellate Commissioner is bad and illegal for not being signed.
• 4. Whether the addition on account of cash deposit in the bank is bad and illegal.
• 5. Whether the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.3,15,000/- on account of undisclosed investment under section 69A of the Act is bad and illegal.
• 6. Whether the income of the assessee is below the taxable limit and hence the addition of Rs.2,67,254 is bad and arbitrary.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Vikas, C/o J. B. Sharma, Advocate, 72, BMK Market, Near Hotel Hive, G.T. Road, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103

• Dipak Kumar Majumdar

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-2018Allowed

• Harish Chander Sehgal vs ITO

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

• M/s Jamiya Arabiya Nafe Ul Uloom Education Society vs Income-tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward, Ghaziabad

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2011-12Allowed

• Gargi Manchanda vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Naem Khan Vs. ITO

  Delhi Bench ‘E’ New Delhi benchAY 2011-12Dismissed