Seema Jitendrakumar Shah vs. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Seema Jitendrakumar Shah, filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee was in receipt of a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the financial year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer made additions/disallowances of Rs.8,02,500/- under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee offered income under section 44AD of the Act, and the Assessing Officer computed the returned income declared at Rs.4,57,850/- inclusive of income declared under section 44AD of the Act. The Assessing Officer made a separate addition towards cash deposit of Rs.8,02,500/- during the demonetization period (9/11/2016 to 30/12/2016) under section 69A of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), which was dismissed. The assessee argued that the addition made under section 69A was not justified as the assessee had a substantial cash balance and the deposit was due to a bonafide mistake related to the demonetization.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is justified.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Mosarrat Perween vs ITO, Ward-61(4), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Guru Nanak Steel Traders vs. The ITO

  Chandigarh bench

• Javed Munir Khan Vs. ITO 26(1)(4)

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(5), SPM Civic Centre, New Delhi. Vs. Anjali Gupta, New Delhi.

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Nand Lal Popli, Vs. The D.C.I.T.

  Chandigarh Bench benchAY 2007-08, 2009-10Partly Allowed

• Shamji Kanji Zaru vs DCIT

  "F" Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22Allowed