SHRI SURESH NANWANI S/O TULSIDAS NANWANI,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer (AO). In the interest of natural justice, the matter was set aside to the AO to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide afresh.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order confirming reassessment proceedings and an addition of Rs. 6,08,250/- on account of cash deposits. The assessee contended that the reassessment was arbitrary and that the addition was made without appreciating facts, including peak credit.
What were the issues?
Whether reassessment proceedings were arbitrary and unjust, and whether the addition on account of cash deposits was justified without considering peak credit.
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 KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD
PER KUL BHARAT, J.M. : Appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore, dated 10.09.2016, pertaining
to assessment year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, details and documents
on records and judicial pronouncements placed
on record and erred in confirming the reassessment proceedings, which is arbitrary,
unjust and bad in law.
That under the facts and circumstances of the case, details & documents on record, the ld. AO
erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,08,250/- Suresh Nanwani,Indore on account of cash deposits in bank account
which is arbitrary, unjust & bad in law.
2 Without prejudice to the above, addition
maintained at Rs. 6,08,250/- is arbitrary since
the same is without appreciating the following :-
- That the appellant is not held as benamidar of Mr. Sumer Singh Solanki.
- Applicant was made second holder of account since 30th Jan.,2007. - During the relevant period u/s 44AF net
profit @ 5% of turnover is applicable
while profit percentage of 15% was applied on total turnover by the Ld.
CIT(A).
3 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A)
erred in not considering the ‘peak credit’ in the aforesaid bank account of Rs. 1,85,328/- Suresh Nanwani,Indore in not deleting the additions in excess of the same, which is arbitrary & unjust.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, details and documents on records and judicial pronouncements placed on record and erred in confirming the reassessment proceedings, which is arbitrary, unjust and bad in law. The AO failed to appreciate the details & documents on record and the ld.
AO erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,08,250/-.
The Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
We have considered the facts, rival submissions and 5. perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee did not appear before the AO and the AO passed
the order. In the interest of natural justice, we deem it proper to set aside the matter back to the file of the AO Suresh Nanwani,Indore with the direction that he shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced in the open court on 29.06.2018. (मनीष बोरड) (कुल भारत) लेखा सद"य "या"यक सद"य Indore; "दनांक Dated : 29/06/2018 CPU*/SPS Copy to: Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/Guard file. By order Private Secretary/DDO, Indore
More judgments on Section 44AF
- Kamlesh Puranmal Agrawal, Surat vs ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), SuratITA 1152/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2009-10
- Vinodkumar Ramubhai Patel, Valsad vs Income Tax Oficer, Ward-4, NavsariITA 332/SRT/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed2 Jun 2026AY 2010-11
- Tej Pal Singh, Haridwar vs ITO, RoorkeeITA 915/DDN/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed12 Jan 2026AY 2010-11
- Vikram Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs ITO, Assessment Unit It Department, MumbaiITA 917/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
- Vipulbhai Vitthalbhai Kakadia, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(1)(5), SuratITA 543/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Nov 2025AY 2010-11
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026