Radhika Anup Ramuka vs. ITO, Ward 41(4)(3)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The learned Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 28,22,939/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, holding the amount received by the appellant as an accommodation entry of bogus long term capital gains. The AO treated the income claimed by the appellant as bogus transaction and added the amount under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. Additionally, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,41,147/- as commission paid for obtaining entry of bogus long term capital gains under section 69C read with section 115BBE of the Act. The AO received information about the high-risk transaction in the 'Insight' portal of the Income Tax Department and conducted a search and survey operation on Dutta and Tyagi group on 16.5.2018. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) challenging the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the appellant did not respond to the notices and did not file any documents. The appellant further appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, but did not provide reasoning for non-appearance before the CIT(A). The ITAT Bench decided to give one more opportunity to the appellant to present his case before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(A).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
• 2. Genuineness of the claim under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Similar Judgements

• OJAS IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

  Delhi bench

• Sarita Goenka vs. Income Tax Officer

  SMC Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Aditya Baheti vs. ITO

  Jaipur bench

• Vipul J.Modi, HUF Vs. ITO, Ward 20(3)(1) Mumbai

• Dipankar Dutta

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2016-2017Partly Allowed

• Manoj Kumar Mittlal vs. DCIT, Circle 34(1), New Delhi

  Delhi bench