NURUNNESHA SARDAR,HOWRAH vs. ITO, 47(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 98/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)9 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee being an elderly lady. Since crucial documents were filed for the first time before the Tribunal, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 11 days. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 12,57,000 as unexplained cash deposits made during the demonetization period under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made during demonetization are unexplained income, and whether documents filed for the first time before the ITAT warrant a remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SONJOY SARMA & SRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: December 20th, 2024 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the AY 2017-18 is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act') dated 07.11.2023, which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 144 of the Act dated 11.11.2019.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →