Sunil Kumar Manjeet Thakuran vs. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Sunil Kumar Manjeet Thakuran, did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. However, it was noticed that the assessee made a cash deposit of Rs.32,76,700/- during the demonetisation period. Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO), the AO passed the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 144 of the Act, assessing the cash deposit. Additionally, the AO noticed from Form 26AS that the assessee received commission income of Rs.10,84,839/- from cellular companies, which was also assessed. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who telescoped the addition relating to commission income with the addition relating to bank deposits and directed the AO to assess commission income at normal rates and the net cash deposit at special rates.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the assessee should be provided an opportunity to present the case properly before the Assessing Officer.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Sunil Kumar Garg vs. ITO

  Jaipur bench

• Krishnan Lakshmanan vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 7(3) Chennai

  Chennai bench

• Krishnan Lakshmanan vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Chennai bench

• Ramdas Vishnu Markute Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Pune

  Pune bench

• ITO Ward-34(1) vs Sunil Dutt Saini

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

• Shekhar Sanjay Jadhav vs The Income Tax Officer, Satara

  Pune bench