← All Phrases

“Section 142(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 142Section 142(1)15,051 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 142(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 142(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

Judgments citing Section 142(1)

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Mangaluru

ITA 642/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Chythanya .K, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

same was also filed before Learned Ad.CIT) and 12.07.2021 in Page 10 of 74 ITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024 reply to the notice under Section 142(1) dated 02.07.2021. 9. 6. Without prejudice, the Learned AO erred in selectively using the revised return to his convenience by adopting pick and choose ... belated return filed on 09.02.2021 when making such addition was objected vide Appellant's letter dated 12.07.2021 in reply to the notice under Section 142(1) dated 02.07.2021. 10. 5. Without prejudice, the Learned AO erred in selectively using the belated return to his convenience by adopting pick and choose

Mr. Madeneralu Annegowda Subbegowda, Chikmagalur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chickmagalur

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2352/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri N Ramaraju, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 69

during the demonetization period. The assessee did not file a return of income for the year under dispute. 3. Consequently, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued, calling for details, including the return of income and proof for the source of cash deposits. The assessee responded

Sri. Maddur Ananthaswamy Srinath, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chitradurga

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1579/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri N Ramaraju, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 69

during the demonetization period. The assessee did not file a return of income for the year under dispute. 3. Consequently, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued, calling for details, including the return of income and proof for the source of cash deposits. The assessee responded

Nandan Singh, Pithoragarh vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant/assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 185/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2019-20 Nandan Singh, Vs. Cit(Appeals)/National Payya Pauri, Faceless Appeal Pithoragarh Cemtre(Nfac) Assessment Uttarakhand Centre, Pan No. Bfaps4805M Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri SK Ahuja, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amarpal Singh Sr. DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144B(1)Section 147Section 148

issued. In pursuance to notice under Section 148, return of income was filed on 19.05.2023 by the assessee. Notices under Section 142(1) dated 29.09.2023 and 19.10.2023 were issued but no response was received. Likewise, reminder dated 30.10.2023, show-cause-notice under Section 144B(1) dated 20.11.2023 and notice dated

Kunwar Toseen, Kotdwar Distt. Pauri Garhwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Kotdwar

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 179/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271A

under Section 148 of the Act on 25.03.2023 with prior approval of the DCIT, Dehradun. Despite intimation letter dated 17.08.2022, multiple notices under Sections 142(1) dated 26.09.2022, 01.11.2022, letter dated 22.12.2022 and show- cause-notices dated 29.12.2022, 15.02.2023, 27.02.2023 and 10.03.2023, no compliance was made by Assessee

Kunwar Toseen, Kotdwar Distt. Pauri Garhwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Kotdwar

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271A

under Section 148 of the Act on 25.03.2023 with prior approval of the DCIT, Dehradun. Despite intimation letter dated 17.08.2022, multiple notices under Sections 142(1) dated 26.09.2022, 01.11.2022, letter dated 22.12.2022 and show- cause-notices dated 29.12.2022, 15.02.2023, 27.02.2023 and 10.03.2023, no compliance was made by Assessee

Kamleshbhai Dwarkadas Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1208/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1208/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Kamleshbhai Dwarkadas Patel, The Ito, Vs. 57-58, Prabhunagar Soc - 2, Ved Ward - 3(2)(1), Darwaja, Katargam, Surat - 395 004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Apbpp0034K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Ashok Gupta HUF, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off for

ITA 52/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 56(2)(ix)

income were called for u/s 142(1) of the Act by means of a questionnaire. Further, queries were raised vide notices under section 142(1) of the Act from time to time. In response, the assessee filed written submission through his A.R. During assessment proceedings, the assessee vide note sheet

Arjun Singh Meena, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 42/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144

failed to correlate with business receipts. Non-consideration of this evidence has led to an erroneous conclusion. 3. Because the notices under sections 142(1) and 148 were not properly served, and the appellant was thus unable to respond within the stipulated time. 4. Because the AO erred in passing ... failed to correlate with business receipts. Non-consideration of this evidence has led to an erroneous conclusion. 3. Because the notices under sections 142(1) and 148 were not properly served, and the appellant was thus unable to respond within the stipulated time. 4. Because the AO erred in passing

Hariram Hospital, Alwar vs. PCIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

this submission, no further information related to unsecured loans was sought by the Assessing Officer Additionally, it is noteworthy that another notice under section 142(1) was issued on 19.02.2021, which did not solicit any information related to unsecured loans Subsequent to this the assessment order was issued dated ... especially surprising considering that:  The assessment was framed under Section 143(3) after due scrutiny. The AO had issued a specific notice under Section 142(1) dated 29.01.2021 seeking  details of the loan from Shri Devendra Singh. The assessee duly submitted the required confirmations, PAN, address, and other  supporting documents

Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sushma Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 1328/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arbind SharmaFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Satish Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1170/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Mittal, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 115BSection 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

Pukhraj, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1114/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalpukhraj, C/O. Virendra Singh Gothiya, Atal Bandh Gate, Dhau Pyasa, Bharatpur 321 001 Pan No.: Birpp 6009G ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bharatpur ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sankalp Pitaliya, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT- Ld. DR
Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer5(4), Barabanki

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 75/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 115BSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW "ी अना"द नाथ "म""ा, लेखा सद"य के समछ BEFORE

ACIT, Circlle-34, Kolkata vs. Subhas Kumar Kedia, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1677/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 246ASection 3Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, बी न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT

Desh Ram, Mumtajpur vs. A.O, Faceless Assessment

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2980/DEL/2024[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Desh Ram, Vs. Assessment Officer, Mumtajpur, Ward No. 05, Faceless Assessment, Baspadamka B.O., Gurgaon Mumtajpur (38), Gurgaon Pan: Ajipr3006Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Vinay Aggarwal, Ar Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

well as the assessee’s alleged non- cooperation had taken place during covid pandemic outbreak period as the date of notice herein under section 142(1) is 2 | P a g e 18.02.2022, and therefore, the possibility of some communication gaps on various levels could not be altogether ruled

Daya Ram, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2268/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldaya Ram, Vs. Pcit, Village Patauda Khera, Rohtak Po Patauda, Distt-Jhajjar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Avrpr0237L Assessee By : Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, Adv Revenue By: Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

races. The Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") served notice under section 143(2) upon the assessee on 22.09.2019 followed by issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act on 23.11.2020. The Ld. AO completed the assessment on 22.01.2021 under section 143(3) r.w. section ... case of the assessee. 6.1 Elaborating the above contentions, the Ld. AR pointed out that in notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 23.11.2020 (copy at Paper Book page 1-2), the Ld. AO required the assessee to furnish documentary evidence in support of claim that the amount

Alagarsamy, Dindigul vs. DCIT, Ward-1, Dindigul

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 315/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 315/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Alagarsamy, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Anumantharayan Kottai, Income Tax, Dindigul – 624 001, Ward -1, Tamil Nadu. Dindigul. [Pan: Biqpa-6564-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.G. Sathyanarayana Advocate ""थ"की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 22.06.2024 Pertains To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 153 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really Prevented In :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri A.G. Sathyanarayana AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 250Section 69A

assessee to file income tax return, for which, there was no response from the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, for which, we find no representation from the assessee before the Assessing Officer, which is reflecting at page 2 of the assessment

Rahul Jesmin Seth, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(5), Tambaram

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 307/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 307/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rahul Jesmin Seth, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No. Ef, 15Th Floor, Sapphire Non Corporate Ward –22(5), Block K, Olympia Opaline No. 33, Tambaram, Chennai. Omr Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Navallur, Chennai 603 103. [Pan: Bhsps-7395-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 23.12.2024 Pertains To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 18 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, Besides Challenging The Exparte Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Also Agitated That The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Additions Of ₹.27,31,000/- Being The Cash Deposits Made In Sbns During The Demonetization Period

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 10Section 10(14)(ii)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 17(2)Section 250Section 69

individual and not filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 31.01.2018 requiring the assessee to file the return of income. Since there was no response from the assessee, again the Assessing Officer ... issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 25.04.2019 calling for certain details. Meanwhile, the Assessing Officer obtained bank statement under section 133(6) of the Act towards cash deposits made during demonetization period. Against the notices issued, the assessee appeared on 12.09.2019 before the Assessing Officer