Shujat Saif v. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Shujat Saif, filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2016-17, wherein the assessee's appeal was dismissed for non-compliance. The assessee argued that the order was vitiated, and the Commissioner erred in law and fact by affirming additions under sections 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also claimed that the Commissioner ignored the fact that no books of accounts were maintained and failed to consider the STRIDHAN accumulated over 31 years post-marriage. The assessee further argued that the Commissioner erred in making additions for unexplained cash deposits and the purchase of property without appreciating the facts. The assessee requested a denovo assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity. The Revenue did not object to the assessee's request.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is vitiated?
• 2. Whether the Commissioner erred in law and fact by affirming additions under sections 69 and 69A?
• 3. Whether the Commissioner ignored the fact that no books of accounts were maintained?
• 4. Whether the Commissioner failed to consider the STRIDHAN accumulated over 31 years post-marriage?
• 5. Whether the Commissioner erred in making additions for unexplained cash deposits?
• 6. Whether the Commissioner erred in making additions for the purchase of property?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• ITA Nos. 1879/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-2019) & ITA Nos. 1880/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2019-2020)

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-2019, 2019-2020Dismissed

• DCIT, Circle-49(1), Kolkata vs. Chiranjeet Kundu

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3) vs. Rajesh Auto Merchandise Private Limited

  Kolkata benchAY 2013-14Dismissed

• Pramodkumar Matabadal Mishra v/s Income Tax Officer

  Nagpur bench

• Meghna Banga Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Ms. Shabnam Laiq Ahmed Khan Vs. ITO-16(3)(1)

  Mumbai bench