Tirupati Jewels vs ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Tirupati Jewels, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,51,620/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment to verify 'cash deposit during demonetization period.' Notices u/s 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act were issued. The assessee made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.2,25,00,000/- into the bank account to HDFC Bank Ltd. during the demonetization period. The assessee claimed that the source for the cash depositing during the demonetization period was cash sales but failed to furnish necessary documentary evidence in support of its claim. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated the cash deposits as unexplained money and made the addition of Rs 2,25,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act, as unexplained money. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) who dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the impugned order of assessment is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and time barred.
• 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO needs to be quashed as the order has been passed without issuing notice u/s. 143 (2) by the AO who was having jurisdiction over the appellant.
• 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the impugned order of assessment has been passed without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the AO prior to passing of the adverse order.
• 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has erred in treating the amount of cash deposits of Rs.2,25,00,000/- in the Bank accounts as unexplained income u/s. 69A of the IT act ignoring the fact that the assessee has submitted all the relevant documents with regard to the source of the cash deposits in the bank account and the addition made by the AO are based on mere suspicion, surmises and conjectures which are unsustainable, arbitrary and unjustified.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• M/S. Satyam Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 5(2), Jaipur

  Jaipur bench

• S. Balaji Mech-Tech Private Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 22 (1), 3696, Sharadhanand Marg, New Delhi.

  Delhi bench

• SANDEEP DUGGAL VS. ASSESSMENT UNIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Keshavlal Chaturdas Patel vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench

• Mundukhola Baksagarh SKUS Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-24

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Zeliant Corp vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1), Delhi

  Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Allowed