Shri. Sandeep Vimalchand Gadiya Vs. ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The facts of the case are that there was a substantial cash deposit in the Financial Year 2011-12 in the assessee’s bank account, and the assessee did not file a return of income. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, and several opportunities were granted to the assessee, but there was no compliance. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition to the entire cash deposits under section 69A of the Act for want of explanation. Additionally, a payment of Rs.5,52,000/- with TDS deducted under section 194C of Rs.5,520/- was noted in Form 26AS, and since the assessee did not file a return of income, the entire receipt was treated as profit under the head 'Profit and Gains of Business or Profession'. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), which was dismissed for want of submission from the assessee’s side.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the AO was justified in making an addition to the entire cash deposits under section 69A of the Act for want of explanation?
• 2. Whether the entire receipt shown in Form 26AS should be treated as profit under the head 'Profit and Gains of Business or Profession' for want of return filing?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Harish Gupta vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. M/s Advant IT Park Private Ltd.

  Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi benchAY 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19Dismissed

• Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(1), New Delhi vs. M/s. Precision Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03Partly Allowed

• Manmohan Pravinchandra Madani vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Hasmukhlal Ishvarlal Patel vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Puneet Kohli vs Assessment Unit

  Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi benchAY 2020-21Allowed