Ramesh Stone Crusher Co. v. The ACIT-3

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee-firm filed its return of income electronically on 05.11.2017, declaring a total income at Rs.28,59,260/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for compliance on 27.09.2018. Notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee, but there was no compliance. The AO issued show cause Notice dated 12.04.2019 u/s. 144 of the Act and various notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act were also issued, but there was no compliance from the assessee. The AO finally completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,38,03,159/- after making addition of Rs. 28,50,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act being the amount found to have been deposited in the assessee’s bank account No.4817002100000252 in Punjab National Bank amounting to Rs. 25,50,000/- and in the bank account No.436502020028011 in Union Bank of India amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed ex-parte qua the assessee.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The assessee challenges the assessment made on the income of Rs.1,38,03,160/- by order dated 17.04.2019 under section 144 of the act.
• 2. The assessee argues that the assessing officer was wrong in passing the order ex-parte without providing reasonable opportunity.
• 3. The assessee argues that the addition on Rs.28,50,000/- on account of cash deposit during demonetization period as made by the assessing officer is highly unjustified.
• 4. The assessee argues that the addition of Rs.80,93,899/- as made by the assessing officer is highly unjustified.
• 5. The assessee argues that the addition of Rs.80,93,899/- as made by the assessing officer by disallowing salary and interest paid to partner is not correct.
• 6. The assessee argues that the finding and observation of both the two lower authorities with regard to addition of Rs.28,50,000/- and Rs.80,93,899/- are totally incorrect and contrary to the actual facts of the case.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• ITA NO. 2771/Del/2024

  Delhi bench

• Sri.Anilkumar Sukumaran v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle Alappuzha

  Cochin bench

• Sanjay vs. ITO, Ward-2

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• ITA No 523 of 2024 Madhavapeddy Sudhakar

  Hyderabad bench

• INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), MORADABAD Vs RITU BHANDULA

  DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI benchAY 2020-21Dismissed

• Arcadia Commodities And Trading vs ACIT – 23(1), Mumbai

  Mumbai bench