Unity Diesel Spares vs. The ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Unity Diesel Spares, is a partnership firm engaged in assembling and trading of agricultural diesel engine parts. The assessee filed its return of income on 24.05.2021, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,13,330/-. Notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued and served on 27.08.2021. The assessee made a cash transaction of Rs. 63,54,150/- during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish details and documents regarding the cash transaction, to which the assessee responded on 02.09.2021, providing a computation of total income of Rs. 1,13,333/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not conducted any business during the year and declared total income of Rs. 1,13,333/- under section 44AD of the Act on a total turnover of Rs. 63,54,150/-. The cash transaction of Rs. 63,54,150/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act as it was not recorded in the books of accounts and the assessee offered no explanation about the nature and source of the transaction. The assessment was completed under sections 143(3), 147, and 144B of the Act, making an addition under section 69A and charging tax at 30% under section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income particulars.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the appellate order was passed without providing a video hearing as required by the Faceless Appeals Scheme?
• 2. Whether the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the submissions made by the appellant is bad in law?
• 3. Whether the reassessment proceedings for A.Y 2013-14 were totally barred by limitation?
• 4. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in framing the assessment in the hands of a dissolved firm?
• 5. Whether the addition to the tune of Rs. 63,54,150/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was justified?
• 6. Whether section 115BBE of the Act was correctly invoked for A.Y 2013-14?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• KRN Exclusive Vs CIT(A)/NFAC

• Sh. Suresh Chand Singhal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-53(2), Delhi

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• M/s. Mirabelle Tradecomm Private Limited

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-2019Allowed

• M/s. Bhanu Jewellers Art vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench

• Pipasa Enterprise Bandar C.S. Shop

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-2018Allowed

• Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), Hapur, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sh. Manoj Kumar Singhal

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Dismissed