Sri Sushil Kumar Jain vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Ranchi

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee derives income from salary and other sources, having filed a return of income showing total income of Rs.2,90,890/- for the relevant year. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS with regard to cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The assessee was asked to explain the genuineness of cash in hand shown at Rs.13,40,845/- in the Balance sheet, which was filed during the assessment proceedings. Despite a specific show-cause notice, the assessee failed to explain the source of the impugned sum. Consequently, it was considered as unexplained and added to the disclosed income. The assessee claimed that relevant details were submitted during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2017-2018, but the ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition and dismissed the appeal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition on the ground that res judicata does not apply in tax matters.
• 2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,40,845/- made by the ld. AO merely on the ground that compliance of summons was not made.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Surender Singh vs ITO

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2011-12Allowed

• DCIT, Central Circle-03, New Delhi vs. Kunjan Arora

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2009-10Dismissed

• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai

  Mumbai bench

• Mrs. Geeta Narendra Gandhi Vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2019-20Partly Allowed

• Tarik Pahuja vs. The ITO

  Chandigarh bench

• Mayur Kanubhai Shah vs ITO, Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench 'E', Mumbai benchAY 2016-17Remanded