Rattan Jodharam Harchwani v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(2)
Parties Involved
Facts Summary
The Assessing Officer received information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs 4.36 cr. in his bank account with Konark Urban Coop. Bank, Ulhasnagar from 07.11.2013 to 20.04.2015. No return of income was filed. Based on search and seizure action by the Investigation unit, Mumbai, the assessee was found to have a bank account involved in this activity. The assessee denied owning the bank account, claiming he was a man of limited means and the account was operated without his knowledge. The AO treated a sum of Rs 11.68 cr. found deposited in the said bank account as unexplained and passed an assessment order invoking provisions of section 144 of the Act.…
Decision in favour of
Assessee
Legal Issues
- 1. Validity of the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer under section 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act.
- 2. Erroneous setting aside of the order by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, for fresh adjudication.
- 3. Justification of treating the credit entries of Rs. 11,68,30,662/- as unaccounted business income.
Judgment Outcome
Decided in favour of Assessee.
Precedents Relied Upon
4 precedents cited in this judgement.
Similar Judgements
Amit Anand vs. ITO, WARD 36(1)
Delhi Bench benchAY 2016-17Partly AllowedAmit Yadav Vs. Income Tax Officer
Delhi Bench benchAY 2020-21Partly AllowedSanjay vs. ITO, Ward-2
Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13AllowedMayank Jain Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Meerut
Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18AllowedIncome Tax Officer, Ward-20(1), New Delhi vs. M/s. Precision Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi Bench benchAY 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03Partly AllowedSundaram Subramanian vs. ITO, Circle -2(1), Trichy