Vinod Sanwaldas Dhingra vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Vinod Sanwaldas Dhingra, is engaged in the interest business and derived income from commission. A search and seizure action was conducted at the premises of the Kamnani Group, Nagpur, on 16/01/2020, where rough noting on documents was found. The Department alleged that the assessee made cash transactions with the Kamnani Group, while the assessee denied any cash transactions and claimed that all transactions were made through proper banking channels. The Assessing Officer treated the transactions as unaccounted cash transactions and made an addition of ` 4,59,272, @ 8% of transaction of ` 57,40,900. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur, who confirmed the addition. The assessee further appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The order passed U/s. 143(3) is illegal, invalid and bad in law.
• 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,72,227/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.
• 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Nagpur erred in confirming addition made by the learned assessing officer under the head income from business is illegal, invalid and bad in law.
• 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur erred in not accepting the contention of the assessee that assessee has not made any cash transaction with Kamnani Group as alleged cash transaction of Rs. 57,40,900/- and treated the same as unaccounted cash transaction not belongs to assessee, therefore addition confirmed is illegal, invalid and bad in law.
• 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur erred in making addition of noting and jotting made by the Kamnani group and relied on the rough seized material from the premises of Kamnani group and without granting any opportunity to cross examine and on the basis of rough noting and jotting treated the same as unaccounted financial transaction and estimated income @3% as average estimated profit and confirmed the addition. Therefore addition confirmed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Shyamkumar Chanduulal Sugandh v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

  Nagpur bench

• ITA Nos. 1879/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-2019) & ITA Nos. 1880/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2019-2020)

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-2019, 2019-2020Dismissed

• Zany Share Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3)(4)

  Mumbai benchAY 2010-11Partly Allowed

• Swapnil Anil Ahirkar v/s Income Tax Officer

  Nagpur bench

• Raja Varshney vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-31

  Delhi bench

• Bipin Futarmal Jain vs. DCIT

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20Allowed