ATAM PARKASH,PATIALA vs. CIT(APPEALS), PATIALA, PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 412/CHANDI/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 December 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)7 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 held that the AO was justified in making an addition for unexplained cash credits as the assessee did not cooperate or provide any explanation for the large deposits. The CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but failed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer (AO) during scrutiny assessment. Despite multiple notices and opportunities, the assessee did not provide requested information regarding substantial bank deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of bank deposits as unexplained cash credits is valid when the assessee fails to provide any explanation or cooperate with the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A,Section 253,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

5.

The impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld. AO who shall pass a fresh order within 60 days from date of receipt of this order with assessee filing all material particulars with Ld. AO sufficiently well in advance.

6.

In the result, appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/12/2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →