Ram Kumar v. The ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The Department of Income Tax noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 23,64,000/- in his savings bank account during the financial year 2010-11. The case was reopened under section 147 and notice under section 148 was issued. The assessee filed an income tax return declaring income of Rs. 50,000/- plus agriculture income of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer assessed Rs. 20,70,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee filed a first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was dismissed. The assessee then filed a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, erred in law & facts by confirming the addition made by AO without service of notice issued u/s 148 dated 23.03.2018.
• 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant without considering the written submission/paper-book available on income tax portal from 30.01.2021.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Ranjit Singh Kundalia Vs. ITO, Ward-62(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata bench

• Surinder Bhandari vs. ITO, Ward 2(3) Ghaziabad

  Delhi bench

• Harvest Agriculture Private Limited Vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(3), Mumbai

• ITA No. 6370/DEL/2025; Assessment Year: 2018-19

• Amit Rango Ramgopal Vs ITO, Ward-24(1)(1), Mumbai

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Virasat Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department