SHAILENDRA VASHNAV,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (WARD-1), DEWAS, DEWAS
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order under Section 263, which formed the basis for the assessment order, was quashed, the consequential assessment order became infructuous. Therefore, the addition made for unexplained cash deposits was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed 86 days late. The assessee, a low-literate labourer, claimed to have learned of the impugned order only upon receiving a penalty notice. The ITAT condoned the delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order passed subsequent to a quashed revisionary order is valid. Whether the addition for unexplained cash deposits is sustainable when the basis of assessment is invalidated.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT & MEMBER SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
PER Dr. MANISH BORAD, A.M:
This appeal of Assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 is directed against the order of First Appellate Authority
ITA No.298 of 2026 2
dated 15.9.2025 which is arising out of the order u/s 263 w.r.s.143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) framed on 20.12.2019 by ITO-1, Dewas.
The only effective issue raised in this appeal is challenging the addition of Rs.10,52,000/- for unexplained cash deposits in the bank account.
We find that this appeal is time-barred by 86 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the affidavit with application for condonation of delay submitted that the assessee is a labou
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 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026