M/S. ARUN SHINDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 337/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 January 2022AY 2007-085 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to explain the source of the credits in their bank account. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in land sale and purchase, did not file an income tax return for AY 2007-08. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on information about significant credits in the assessee's bank account.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the taxability of unexplained credits in the assessee's bank account and the failure to substantiate the source of these deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 148,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Hearing: 05.01.2022Pronounced: 05.01.2022

ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 28.10.2016 for the assessment year 2007-08.

2.

The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other- On facts and in law -

1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,79,57,720/- u/s 69 of the I. T. Act, 1961. For this and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the CIT (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer may be vacated and the appellant's claim may be allowed or any suitable directions issued.

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”

3. When the matter had come up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice, therefore, we proceed to decide the issue after hearing the ld. Sr. DR.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of sale & purchase of lands. No return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 was filed. However, the Assessing Officer, on receipt of the information from the Director of Investigation that the appellant had credits in his bank account with ICICI Bank Ltd., Kothrud Branch, A/c No.003901553023 to the extent of Rs.1,79,57,720/-, formed an opinion that the income escaped assessment and, accordingly, issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 14.03.2014. In response to the said notice u/s 148, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Subsequently, there was no response even to the notices issued u/s 142(1) by the Assessing Officer. In these circumstances, the Assessing Officer was constrained to pass an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 of the Act bringing to tax credits of Rs.1,79,57,720/- appearing in the bank

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →