Shri Dinesh Narayan Shetty Vs. The Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

This is an appeal filed by the assessee, Shri Dinesh Narayan Shetty, challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 25/10/2024 in respect of the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee contends that the assessment order was made ex-parte under section 144 of the Act because he did not receive the notices. He argues that the addition of Rs. 29,88,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act is incorrect and not based on any material records. The assessee submitted various documents on 24/07/2024, including an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962, which were not considered by the CIT(A).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the orders of the authorities below are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts, and circumstances of the case.
• 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in disposing off the appeal without considering the detailed written submissions and additional evidence furnished by the assessee.
• 3. Whether the assessee was given an effective opportunity during the assessment proceedings.
• 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 29,88,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act is justified.
• 5. Whether the invocation of section 11566E and taxing the addition at 60% is justified.
• 6. Whether the assessee is liable to be charged interest under section 234-A of the Act.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• M/s. Bhanu Jewellers Art vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench

• Usha Patodia Vs. ITO, Ward 30(1)

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• B.M. Manjunatha Gupta vs. ITO

  Bangalore bench

• Dinesh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon, Haryana

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Narendra Mohanlal Shah Vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(3), Range 431, Ward 42(1)(3), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051

• M/s. R K Sipani Foundation Vs. The Income Tax Officer (E), Ward – 2, Bangalore

  Bangalore benchAY 2013-14Allowed