Shri Pulak Samanta Vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Burdwan

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Shri Pulak Samanta, a sole proprietor of M/s. Ajit Auto Service, filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017–18, declaring a total income of ₹3,12,430. The case was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. The assessee disclosed total sales of ₹2,85,98,369 and miscellaneous receipts of ₹2,44,450, declaring a gross profit of ₹8,35,485 and net profit of ₹3,63,390. Income from other sources of ₹1,00,905 was also shown, and deductions were claimed under sections 80C (₹1,50,000) and 80TTA (₹1,865). During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed substantial cash deposits made in the assessee’s bank accounts, including deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee explained that, being an agent of Bajaj Finance Ltd., he collected instalments and due amounts from customers and deposited the same into his bank account before transferring them to Bajaj Finance Ltd. However, the Assessing Officer treated certain amounts as unexplained cash credits and added an undisclosed bank balance to the total income.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Addition of ₹1,23,000 as unexplained cash credit during demonetization period.
• 2. Addition of ₹30,000 under section 68 on account of cash deposit in Oriental Bank of Commerce.
• 3. Addition of ₹13,307 towards undisclosed bank balance.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• VED PRAKASH VS. ITO, WARD 3, REWARI HARYANA

  DELHI BENCH benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Shilpa Gupta Vs. Income-tax Officer

  Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Jagram Manesar vs. Assessing Officer, Gurugram

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Surender Kumar Aggarwal vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• ITA No.4637/Del/2024

• Shakti Sales Corporation Vs ITO, Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai