JADHAV SACHIN TUKARAM,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2828/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 September 2021AY 2011-128 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered withdrawals and other explained sources. Since the assessee's explanation of deposit sources was not examined by the lower authorities, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased properties and explained the source of investment as withdrawals from bank accounts. The AO made an addition for a negative cash balance, which the CIT(A) enhanced. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) ignored withdrawals and other explained deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the addition by not considering withdrawals and other explained deposits, and whether the assessee's explanation of deposit sources needs to be examined by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Thakkar
For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

Date 1. Draft dictated on 16-09-2021 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 16-09-2021 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before JM the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by JM Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →