Shri Atul Kantilal Jain vs. ACIT-4(1), Indore

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

Shri Atul Kantilal Jain, engaged in the business of trading oil paint and related allied articles, filed his income return on 30.10.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.45,22,200/-. During the scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (A.O) made an addition of Rs.8,65,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposited in the bank during the demonetization period. The assessee challenged this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The assessee's Advocate Representative (AR) pointed out that the CIT(A) had issued two notices which were replied to by the assessee, but no questionnaire was attached to the notices. The assessee also requested a hearing through video conferencing, which was not granted. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O, leading to the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law, without jurisdiction, and based on incorrect interpretation of law?
• 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not allowing a hearing through video conferencing?
• 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,65,000/- made under section 68?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Yashwantrao Chavan Centre vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(4)

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17Allowed

• Shri Ramesh Yadav Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Gurgaon

  Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• M/s. Appa Trading Company Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Salem

  Chennai bench

• Aziz Sultanali Lalani Vs. Income Tax Ward Mum- W-(199)(1) Mumbai-400012.

• Sachidanand Rai vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Allahabad bench

• Shri Satabdi Developers Pvt. ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 10(2)

  Kolkata benchAY 2012-13Allowed