Rajia Sultana Khatun vs. ITO, Ward-27(3), Haldia

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Rajia Sultana Khatun, did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. Information revealed that she made significant cash deposits and withdrawals in her bank accounts and received interest income during the financial year 2017-18. The case was selected for scrutiny under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and proceedings under sections 147/148 were initiated. Despite notices being issued, the assessee did not comply. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 2,00,000 as unexplained income under section 68 and Rs. 61,50,000 as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. The assessee appealed against this order, which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee then filed this appeal, arguing that the addition of Rs. 61,50,000 was unjustified due to a technical error in the bank's SFT-03 return upload.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition of Rs. 61,50,000 as unexplained expenditure by the Assessing Officer was justified.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpur Vs. Imranbhai Umarbhai Qureshi

  Ahmedabad bench

• M.N Manjula Vs. The Income Tax Officer

  SMC Bench: Bangalore benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-71(3), New Delhi

• Terai Fruits Company Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Siliguri

  KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Islander Housing Project Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Port Blair

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2020-21Allowed

• Gautambhai Nansinh Chauhan Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(1) Petlad

  Ahmedabad bench