Vikash Ulhawas vs. Ward -4

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Vikash Ulhawas, did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. A notice under section 142(1) was issued on 31.03.2018, but the assessee did not respond. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.1,41,01,978 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessee appealed against the order of the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, who dismissed the appeal for not condoning the delay of 776 days in filing the appeal. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.
• 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
• 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. AO to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- by wrongly alleging that the assessee had deposited the said sum during the year in the Oriental Bank of Commerce bearing account no.07541011000977 without any corroborating material on record.
• 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. AO u/s. 69A of the Act without verifying the actual facts of the case based on material submitted by the appellant and even without proper examination of the documents and information presented before the goodself.
• 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. AO u/s. 69A of the Act to the tune of Rs.30,49,000/- by wrongly treating the transactions of cash deposits in the bank account of assessee maintained with the Indian Bank, Axis Bank and Oriental Bank of Commerce as being unexplained money.
• 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. AO u/s. 69 A of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,10,52,978/- by wrongly treating the transactions made through credit entries and reflecting in the bank account of assessee maintained with the Indian Bank, Axis Bank and Oriental Bank of Commerce as being unexplained money.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

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

  DELHI BENCH benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Income Tax Officer, Ward-51(5), Delhi vs. Vipin Mittal

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Nafe Singh Shokeen vs. ITO Ward 34(6), Delhi

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Harish Sharma, Proprietor M/s Shekhar Textile Industries v. The ITO

  Chandigarh bench

• Jagram Manesar vs. Assessing Officer, Gurugram

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• ITA No.2662/Del/2024

  Delhi bench