Venkata Ramana Voonna vs. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Venkata Ramana Voonna, filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 12/03/2018, declaring a total income of Rs. 3,69,000/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the CPC, Bengaluru on 29/05/2018. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the 'cash deposits during demonetization period'. A notice under section 143(2) was issued on 10/08/2018, and the assessee was asked to provide corroborative evidence for cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The assessee submitted information on 23/04/2019, stating that he had sold agricultural land for Rs. 10,41,000/- and that the sale proceeds were given to another person for purchasing land, which was later cancelled. The assessee claimed that the amount was returned and subsequently given as a loan to Smt. Voonna Sasikala. However, the Assessing Officer did not consider the submissions due to the absence of corroborative evidence and invoked section 69A of the Act, adding Rs. 10,19,000/- as unexplained money and taxing it under section 115BBE of the Act. The assessee appealed against this order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which was dismissed. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the assessment order passed by the ITO is null and void?
• 2. Whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the action of the AO in treating the amount of Rs. 10,19,000/- as unexplained income?
• 3. Whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the action of the AO in treating Rs. 8,78,000/- as unexplained cash credits?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• VED PRAKASH VS. ITO, WARD 3, REWARI HARYANA

  DELHI BENCH benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Smt. Bimla Kaur Multani vs. ITO, Ward Dasuya

  Amritsar bench

• Narayanagr Palanisamy vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-4(1), Coimbatore

  Chennai bench

• Rajbir Singh Vs Income Tax Officer, Sonipat, Haryana

• RAHUL JAIN VS. ITO, WARD 59(8), NEW DELHI

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Smt. Ramadevi Nama vs. Income Tax Officer

  Hyderabad bench