KAILASH NATH GUPTA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 141/LKW/2021Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 August 2022AY 2017-20183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order on a deceased assessee without impleading the legal heir. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 2,12,500/- for unexplained bank deposits. The assessee argued that sufficient documentation for cash availability was provided and that CBDT instructions for senior citizens should apply. However, the assessee had passed away during the appeal proceedings before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order is valid when passed on a deceased assessee without impleading the legal heir. The validity of additions for unexplained bank deposits in light of documentary evidence and CBDT instructions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI T.S. KAPOOR

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, CA
For Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, DR
Hearing: 27/07/2022Pronounced: 10/08/2022

O R D E R PER T.S. KAPOOR, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 29/10/2021. In this appeal, the assessee has taken the following grounds:

“1. The humble appellant had well explained the availability of Fund (old SBN's) with supporting Cash Flow Fund statement which had not been disputed by the Courts below.

2.

The Government had allowed the time to deposit in old Currency in Bank upto December, 2016 and the appellant had deposited the same within the time allowed as per chart given below para 2 of the order of the learned Assessing Officer.

3.

That the main objection of the learned Assessing Officer was as to why the entire deposits were not made on a Assessment year: 2017-18 2 single day whereas there was no such binding of the appellant.

4.

That the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) too confirmed the addition without properly considering the facts in a judicious way which is quite illegal.”

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →