DINESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD (5), PATNA
The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 427/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17
Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.427/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dinesh Kumar……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/O Bhurendra Prasad, Near B D Public School, Buddha Colony, Patna – 800001. [Pan: Bxbpk1456M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Patna…………. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shailendra Sinha, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Showing Total Income Of Rs.2,71,810/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Produce Books Of Accounts, Ledger, Cash Book Etc. Before Him But The Assessee Did Not Comply. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer After Verification Of Return Of Income Found That The Assessee Had Filed Balance Sheet Showing Gross Total Income Of Rs.36,00,712/- & The Assessee Incurred Miscellaneous
Section 143(2)Section 194Section 249(3)Section 250
section 194,
Rs.4025927/- on which TDS was deducted. As the assessee was shown gross receipts of Rs.3600712/-, therefore, the difference of Rs.425212/- was treated as income from business and profession. The Assessing
Officer also disallowed the unsecured loan of Rs.1445600/- and treated the same as income from other sources. Further, the Assessing Officer denied the claim under chapter
