Satbir Mahato Vs. ITO, Ward 24(3)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Satbir Mahato, filed a return of income declaring a total income of ₹18,600/-. His case was reopened under section 147 of the Act due to large cash deposits into his bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices and questionnaires, to which the assessee responded. The AO noted that the assessee claimed he had no business and did not deposit any cash, stating the cash belonged to Shri Devesh Upadhyaya, who used the assessee's PAN to open and operate a bank account. The AO summoned Shri Devesh Upadhyaya, who admitted to opening the account and depositing ₹18.75 crores in cash. The AO assessed the income at 8% of the total deposit, adding ₹1.50 crore to the assessee's income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) partly allowed the appeal, deleting most of the addition but confirming ₹14,06,250/-. The assessee appealed this partial confirmation.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Confirmation of addition of ₹14,06,250/- by the ld. CIT(A)

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Dhananjoy Das Adhikari Vs ITO Ward-27(2), Haldia

  Kolkata benchAY 2017-2018Allowed

• Shri Aadesh Tyagi Vs. The Income-tax Officer

  DELHI ‘A’ BENCH benchAY 2009-10Allowed

• DCIT, Central-1, Siliguri Vs Bajla Motors Private Limited

  Kolkata benchAY 2018-2019Dismissed

• ANIS Abdulkadar Nakhawaji Vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2012-13Partly Allowed

• Ajay Kumar Agarwal vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(4), Hathras

  Agra bench

• Aakash Value Realty Private Limited Vs. DCIT CC-1(2), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2016-17Allowed