Bhulabhai Nathubhai Patel v. ITO

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 1987 TaxPub(DT) 1279 (SC)
REFERRED Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1968 TaxPub(DT) 0085 (Cal-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1733 (Srt-Trib) IN THE ITAT SURAT BENCH PAWAN SINGH, J.M. & A. L. SAINI, AM Bhulabhai Nathubhai Patel v. ITO ITA No. 67/SRT/2024 8 April, 2024 Appellant by: P. M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by: Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER *A.L. Saini, A.M.* Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (assessment year) 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short the learned Commissioner (Appeals)), Surat, National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short the NFAC), dated 7-11-2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by assessing officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dated 10-10-2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 25,02,500 on account of cash deposited during the demonetisation period in bank account without considering the facts of the case and treated as alleged unexplained income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in not considering the cash book given by us for explanation of cash deposited in bank. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition on the basis that the assessee has not filed ROI and hence no validity of cash book. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in not considering the reply that the cash deposited from earlier withdrawal made from bank. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 5,39,704 on account of cash deposited excluding demonetisation period and credit entries appearing in the bank accounts treated as alleged unexplained income. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1733 (Srt-Trib)

IN THE ITAT SURAT BENCH

PAWAN SINGH, J.M. & A. L. SAINI, AM

Bhulabhai Nathubhai Patel v. ITO

ITA No. 67/SRT/2024

8 April, 2024

Appellant by: P. M. Jagasheth, CA

Respondent by: Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR

ORDER

A.L. Saini, A.M.

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (assessment year) 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short the learned Commissioner (Appeals)), Surat, National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short the NFAC), dated 7-11-2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by assessing officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dated 10-10-2019.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 25,02,500 on account of cash deposited during the demonetisation period in bank account without considering the facts of the case and treated as alleged unexplained income.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in not considering the cash book given by us for explanation of cash deposited in bank.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition on the basis that the assessee has not filed ROI and hence no validity of cash book.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in not considering the reply that the cash deposited from earlier withdrawal made from bank.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 5,39,704 on account of cash deposited excluding demonetisation period and credit entries appearing in the bank accounts treated as alleged unexplained income.