Rajesh Kumar Jalan Vs. ITO, Ward 44(2)
Parties Involved
Facts Summary
The assessee, Rajesh Kumar Jalan, filed a return of income on 28th August, 2015, declaring a total income of ₹3,41,700/- after claiming deductions. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Bureau of Investigation, Commercial Tax, West Bengal, indicating that the assessee had received payments totaling ₹112,41,47,898/- through seven bank accounts in the name of six traders from 2012-13 to 2015-16. The AO noted that the assessee purchased an immovable property for ₹41,21,145/- on 04.07.2014. The AO added this amount as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The assessee did not respond to the notice issued by the AO. In the appellate proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition regarding the shortfall of profit but confirmed the addition under section 69 of the Act.…
Decision in favour of
Assessee
Legal Issues
- 1. Whether the addition of ₹41,21,145/- made by the AO under section 69 of the Act is justified.
Judgment Outcome
Decided in favour of Assessee.
Precedents Relied Upon
2 precedents cited in this judgement.
Similar Judgements
DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata vs. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited
M/s Bengal Omnitech Nirman Ltd. vs. ACIT/ ITO, Ward 8(1), Kolkata
Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-19AllowedKanha Villa LLP vs. Income Tax Ward 29(1), Kolkata
Kolkata Bench benchAY 2020-21AllowedSasha Association for Craft Producers vs ITO, Ward-1(3)
Kolkata Benches “SMC” benchAY 2017-18AllowedIncome Tax Officer, Ward-50(1), Room No. 1408, E-2, Block, Dr. S. P. M. Civic Centre, New Delhi vs The Silk Factory, Central Circle-29, Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019
Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2019-20DismissedNeena Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-1(2)
Kolkata Bench benchAY 2010-11Allowed