SHOBHA PRAKASH SHETTY,MUMBI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 25(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1095/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the assessee's cash book as fabricated without specific defects. The Tribunal considered the nature of the business, the consistent auditing of accounts, and the lack of any other undisclosed income source, concluding that the cash deposits were likely business receipts.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 29,15,468/- to the assessee's income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, considering it as unexplained cash credit. This addition was made after a survey revealed large cash deposits in the assessee's bank account during the demonetization period, which the AO found to be unsupported by the assessee's cash book and other documentation.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 29,15,468/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit is justified, considering the explanation provided by the assessee regarding cash deposits during the demonetization period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil P. Ramesh, Sr.DR
Hearing: 29.10.2024Pronounced: 22.11.2024

आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →