SH. DEVINDER KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-VII(1), LUDHIANA

ITA 1270/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2018AY 2011-128 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained cash deposits and disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii). However, it deleted the addition for unproved unsecured loans and the disallowance under section 14A, following jurisdictional High Court precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an architect, filed a return of income which was processed under section 143(1). However, the assessment was later completed under section 143(3) with significant additions, including unexplained cash deposits, disallowance of interest, unproved unsecured loans, and disallowance of expenses under section 14A. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-attendance and lack of submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified, particularly concerning unexplained cash deposits, interest disallowance, unsecured loans, and expenses related to exempt income. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's plea of not being afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 36(1)(iii),Section 14A

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, DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Respondent: Ms. Deepika Mohan, JCIT
Hearing: 16.05.2018Pronounced: 30.05.2018

PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM:

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against

the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-

4, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as CIT(Appeals)) dated

19.6.

2017 relating to assessment year 2011-12. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee who

is an architect by profession had filed his return of income

for the year under consideration on 21.03,2012 declaring

therein an income of Rs.2,33,090/- which was stated to be processed under section 143(1) of the Act at the returned

income. However, the assessment in this case was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order under section 143(3

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →