Sunita Shivkumar Prajapati vs Animesh Naskar

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The Appellant filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring total income of INR 2,33,060/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Appellant was asked to explain cash deposits aggregating to INR 2,36,15,330/- made in the bank account of the Appellant during the relevant previous year. The Appellant submitted that they were engaged in the business of domestic money transfer and earned commission income at a rate of 0.20% of cash collected on behalf of companies having distributorship agreements with the Appellant. The Appellant collected cash from many sub-retailers and deposited the same in the bank account before transferring it to the companies who are owners of such cash. The Appellant submitted that during the relevant previous year, they had received commission of INR 52,336/- from EKO India Financial Services Private Limited, INR 9,712/- from Oxigen Services India Private Limited, and INR 7,381/- from Weizmann Impex Service Enterprise Limited. The Assessing Officer concluded that the Appellant had failed to provide any explanation in relation to cash deposits aggregating to INR 33,55,000/- made in the bank account of the Appellant during the demonetization period and therefore, made an addition of the said amount in the hands of the Appellant under Section 69A of the Act. The Appellant carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A), which was dismissed. The Appellant then appealed to the Income Tax Appellat…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is flawed both legally and factually, considering the circumstances of the case.
• 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has made erroneous calculations amounting to Rs 33,55,000/- under section 69A of the Act, disregarding pertinent facts and submissions presented by the assessee.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

  Mumbai bench

• DCIT Vs EKO India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.

  Delhi bench

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

  Kolkata benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Dhaval Dinesh Shah vs Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai

• Talha Abbas Mukhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4) Thane

  Mumbai bench

• Jitendra Kumar Sharma vs. ITO

  Jaipur bench