Sanjaysinh Mahida Vs. ITO and Hitendrasinh Mahida Vs. CIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessees, Sanjaysinh Mahida and Hitendrasinh Mahida, have filed appeals against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre relating to the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The assessees raised several grounds of appeal, including the failure to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard, dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, and improper addition of income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessees argued that they had withdrawn cash from the bank and deposited it during the Demonetization period into bank accounts with SBI and Central Bank of India. The appeals were heard together due to the identical facts involved.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Failure to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard and dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.
• 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits and totally relied upon the assessment order.
• 3. Improper addition of income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
• 4. Ignoring the fact that the applicant has withdrawn cash from the bank and deposited it during the Demonetization period.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Mahesh Narsinghani vs. ITO 28(2)(1)

  Mumbai 'C' Bench benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Gurkripa Enterprises Vs. ITO, Ward-40(3), Kolkata

  Kolkata 'SMC' Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• CHETNA SUNDARAM VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 70(1), NEW DELHI

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Shambhubhai Keshabhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• AJAY PRATAP RAMAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(5), GHAZIABAD

  DELHI BENCH benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Sri Guru Thipperudraswamy Devasthana vs. The Income Tax Officer