SHOBNA AGARWAL,AJMER ROAD JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 , JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 226/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 September 2024AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a bank certificate was submitted confirming a withdrawal was indeed cash and not a cheque. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify the availability of cash and decide the issue afresh.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 26,50,000 in cash into her bank account during the demonetization period, claiming it was from earlier cash withdrawals for business purposes. The Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this explanation, adding the amount to the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits during demonetization were unexplained income, and whether the assessment scope was improperly expanded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3),Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 226/JP/2024

Hearing: 30/07/2024Pronounced: 02/09/2024

Result

12.

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is disposed of for statistical purposes, and in the interest of justice, matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer so as to take into consideration the certificate placed before this Appellate Tribunal, to verify the availability of cash with the assessee at the given time during the year under consideration and decide the matter in accordance with law, as regards framing of assessment for the year under consideration.

1.

Shobna Agarwal vs ACIT-2, Jaipur Of course, Learned Assessing Officer shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the appellant-assessee. File be consigned after the needful is done by the office.

1.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 02/09/2024 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Shobna Agarwal, Jaipur izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Circle-02, Jaipur 2. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 226/JP/2024) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →