Ramilaben Dineshbhai Mordiya vs. ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

During the assessment year 2012-13, the Department observed that the assessee had made a cash deposit of Rs. 27,40,500/- in her savings bank account at State Bank of India. The Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee under Section 147 of the Act and a notice under Section 148 was issued on March 22, 2019, to which there was no response from the side of the assessee. Subsequently, on October 7, 2019, another notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued, asking the assessee to furnish details regarding the source of the cash deposits, but again, the assessee did not comply. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the savings bank statement showed total credit entries of Rs. 58,79,197/- which included the cash deposits. Since the assessee failed to file a return of income for the assessment year, these entries remained unexplained, along with unreported interest income of Rs. 6,664/-. Given the lack of response, the Assessing Officer issued another show-cause notice on November 5, 2019, asking the assessee to explain why the assessment should not be finalized under Section 144 of the Act and why the cash deposits should not be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Act. The assessee failed to provide any satisfactory explanation. As a result, the total credit of Rs. 58,79,197/- was deemed unexplained under Section 69A by the Assessing Officer and the same was added to the total income of the assessee. Additionally, t…

Legal Issues

• 1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against law, equity & justice.
• 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal filed delay and not condone for delay.
• 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not adjusting for addition made by the Ld. A.O. of cash deposits and other credit amount of Rs. 58,79,197/- U/S. 69A of the Act as unexplained money.
• 4. The CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not adjusting for addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs. 6664/- as interest income.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• MANISHA AGGARWAL VS. ITO, WARD 70(3), NEW DELHI

  DELHI BENCH benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Gargi Manchanda vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Dilbagh Singh vs. The ITO

  Chandigarh bench

• Sh. Himanshu Sawhney Vs. Income Tax officer, Ward -59(5), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Niravbhai Kirit Shah vs. The ITO

  Surat bench

• M/s Tanmay International Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(5), Delhi

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed