DINESH KUMAR DIXIT, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above
ITA 167/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18
Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.167/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Dixit Vs Income Tax Officer 1, Dixit Bhawan, K.K. Road Ward-3(4) Moudhapara, Raipur-492 001 (Cg) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Actpd 0023H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023, Arose On The Issues Raised Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Framed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 27.11.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Order Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts As The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.96,43,971/- Under The Income Tax Act, 1961Contrary To The Provisions Of Income Tax Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs.70,31,100/- In Respect Of Alleged Cash Deposits In Bank Account During The Period Of Demonetization, When The Same Is Same At Variance With The Actual Figures Recorded In The Books Of Accounts.
For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, SR-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 68
demonetization period, the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.70,31,100/- in his bank account. In absence of any explanation from the assessee, this amount of Rs.70,31,100/- was treated as unexplained income of the assessee and addition u/s 68 of the Act was made. Further, in absence of books of accounts of the assessee, a disallowance
