NANDU ATMARAM WAJEKAR,PANVEL RAIGAD DISTRICT vs. ACIT CIRCLE PANVEL, PANVEL RAIGAD

ITA 66/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)14 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to pay the taxes under the IDS and did not provide any evidence to substantiate the nature and source of the declared income, the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the amount as unexplained money and taxing it under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared undisclosed income under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 but failed to pay the required taxes and penalty. Consequently, the declaration was cancelled, and the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment. The assessee failed to provide any documentation to substantiate the declared income.

What were the issues?

Whether the declared income under IDS, 2016, which was not substantiated with evidence and on which taxes were not paid, can be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 183,Section 184,Section 185,Section 187,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Bharat H Shah
For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

PER R. K. PANDA, VP :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.11.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2017-18. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in real estate business. He has filed Form 1 being form of declaration under section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016 in respect of Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 declaring therein a total amount of Rs.11,59,01,141/-. Accordingly, the assessee was required to pay tax, surcharge & penalty on or before the specified date mentioned in section 187(1) of the Finance Act, 2016 on the additional income offered under IDS, 2016. However, the assessee had failed

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 184

All 51 judgments and leading authorities on Section 184 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →