RAHUL SHARMA,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), MIRZAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. It found that the bank account in question likely belongs to the assessee's father's proprietorship concern and that the deposits need to be verified against the business's cash book.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was delayed by 260 days due to issues with his previous counsel and email communication. The original assessment and the first appeal were decided ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee. The assessee claims the bank account in question belongs to his father's business and not him.
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made to the assessee's income on account of bank deposits are justified, and if the bank account and its transactions were correctly attributed to the assessee instead of his father's business.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69A,Section 144,Section 250,Section 234A,Section 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD.
Before: SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA & NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
Per: Udayan Das Gupta, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, dated 25/07/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Act 61, which has emanated from the order of the ITO / Ward 3(2), Mirzapur, passed u/s 144 of the Act 61, dated 23/12/2019. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is belated by 260 days and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay , along with a sworn 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18
affidavit, explaining the fact that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) has been uploaded in the portal on 25/07/2023, and the appeal was supposed to have been filed within sixty days i.e. by 23/09/2024, but unfortunately, the asse
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
