Ramavtar Akar vs The ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee's return of income was put to scrutiny, and a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 11.08.2018. The assessee, engaged in the trading business of gold and silver ornaments, declared a total income of Rs. 10,63,810/- after claiming deductions. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited a cash amount of Rs. 1,27,49,000/- in different bank accounts, out of which Rs. 1,26,99,000/- were SBNs. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 66,16,353/- to the total income of the assessee as unexplained SBNs deposits under section 68 of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance. The assessee then filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
• 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.66,16,353/- u/s 69A of IT Act by treating the cash deposit in the bank account during demonetization period to this extent as unexplained.
• 3. The lower authorities have erred on facts and in law in taxing the alleged amount u/s 115BBE at the rate of 60 per cent instead of taxing the same at the rate of 30 per cent.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Girish Vrajlal Soni Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

  SMC Bench, Ahmedabad benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Shri Hitesh Ugamraj Mehta vs. Assessing Officer

  Mumbai bench

• Hemant Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kasturi Jewellers P. Ltd.

  Delhi Bench 'F' benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Sh. Dinesh Kumar Soni vs. DCIT

  Jaipur bench

• Shrenik Bothra vs Pr. CIT(Central)

  Raipur bench

• Thahira Beevi vs. The DCIT

  Cochin bench