Mathara Das Soni v. ACIT - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT 1977 TaxPub(DT) 0842 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Associated Industrial Development Co. Ltd. 1971 TaxPub(DT) 0385 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Durga Prasad More 1969 TaxPub(DT) 0160 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad 1969 TaxPub(DT) 0124 (SC)
REFERRED Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT 1963 TaxPub(DT) 0420 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1008 (Jod-Trib) IN THE ITAT JODHPUR BENCH S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. & RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, A.M. Mathara Das Soni v. ACIT I.T.A. No. 33/Jodh/2024 22 February, 2024 Appellant by: Rajendra Jain, Adv. Respondent by: Alka Rajvanshi Jain, CIT DR ORDER *Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, A.M.* This appeal filed by assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Jaipur-5 dated 8-1-2024 (here in after learned Commissioner (Appeals)) for assessment year 2017-18 which in turn arise from the order dated 30-12-2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Barmer. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law and bad in facts. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner (Appeals) grossly erred in not analyzing the submission of assessee supported from material evidence in right prospective and judicious manner and sustained the addition in a hypothetical way which is against principle of natural justice. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) grossly erred in upholding the provision of sec 145(3) of the Act applied by the learned assessing officer for rejection of books of accounts. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) grossly erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 8,95,23,633 in respect of cash sales made on 08/11/2016 deposited in bank account as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1008 (Jod-Trib)

IN THE ITAT JODHPUR BENCH

S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. & RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, A.M.

Mathara Das Soni v. ACIT

I.T.A. No. 33/Jodh/2024

22 February, 2024

Appellant by: Rajendra Jain, Adv.

Respondent by: Alka Rajvanshi Jain, CIT DR

ORDER

Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, A.M.

This appeal filed by assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Jaipur-5 dated 8-1-2024 (here in after learned Commissioner (Appeals)) for assessment year 2017-18 which in turn arise from the order dated 30-12-2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Barmer.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law and bad in facts.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner (Appeals) grossly erred in not analyzing the submission of assessee supported from material evidence in right prospective and judicious manner and sustained the addition in a hypothetical way which is against principle of natural justice.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) grossly erred in upholding the provision of sec 145(3) of the Act applied by the learned assessing officer for rejection of books of accounts.

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) grossly erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 8,95,23,633 in respect of cash sales made on 08/11/2016 deposited in bank account as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.