Suvasis Panja Vs ITO Ward-27(1), Haldia

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

This is an appeal filed by the assessee, Suvasis Panja, against the order dated 29.03.2024 passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-2018. The assessee is running a cyber cafe and earns income on an actual commission basis. The assessee had declared income under section 44AD of the Act and deposited an amount of Rs.32,50,000/- during the demonetization period, which the Assessing Officer (AO) treated as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee submitted that this was cash in hand deposited in the bank account and the addition is not sustainable. The Senior Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A). The assessee’s advocate argued that the provisions of section 44AD of the Act were not properly examined by the lower authorities, especially in view of section 44AD(6)(ii) concerning commission income.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the income declared under section 44AD is sustainable given the nature of the assessee's business and income sources.
• 2. Whether the deposit of Rs.32,50,000/- during demonetization should be treated as income from undisclosed sources.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Sri Tanmoy Dutta vs. AO, NFAC/ITO

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• Hari Om Verma vs. ITO, Ward 71(2)

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Javed Munir Khan Vs. ITO 26(1)(4)

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Tapas Kundu

  SMC Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2017-2018Dismissed

• Arushi Suri Vs. Assessment Officer, Assessment Unit J-2, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi

• Shyama Devi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Shivalik Tower, 505, Ghaziabad

  Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed