Santosh Maruti Pawar vs. ITO, Ward-14(5), Pune

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Santosh Maruti Pawar, is an individual engaged in agricultural activities. The Department noticed that the assessee had purchased immovable property for Rs.50,00,000/- along with 4 persons. A reassessment was initiated, and the Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer asked for the sources of Rs.10,00,000/- invested in the property purchase, but the assessee did not respond. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment and determined taxable income of Rs.10,00,000/-. The assessee appealed against this order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), but the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, claiming that the addition was erroneous as the investment source was the sale of another agricultural land.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact in making addition of Rs.10,00,000/- as unexplained investment to the Returned Income without considering the factual position of the same.
• 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact in levying penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 271(1)(b).
• 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact in levying penalty of Rs.1,56,560/- under section 271(1)(c).
• 4. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact in levying penalty of Rs.5,000/- under section 271F.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Smt. E. Chandrakala vs. ITO

  Chennai bench

• The Hisar Leading Bank Co-op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society vs ITO, Ward 1, Hisar

  Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Jaishri Pande vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai bench

• Jagdish Amrutlal Thakar vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Smt. Smita Ashok Thakkar vs. DCIT

  Mumbai bench

• Dhruva Goel vs. DCIT

  F Bench, New Delhi benchAY 2015-16Allowed