TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT upholds unexplained cash deposits assessment and validates reassessment proceedings for non-filer</h1> <h3>Avinash Chaudhary C/o M/s Sanjeev Anand And Associates Versus ITO Ward 1 (1) Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.</h3> Avinash Chaudhary C/o M/s Sanjeev Anand And Associates Versus ITO Ward 1 (1) Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. - TMI Issues involved:The issues involved in this case include confirmation of addition of cash deposits as unexplained, treatment of long term capital gain as short term capital loss, and validity of reassessment order passed under sections 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Confirmation of addition of cash deposits:The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 39,76,185 as unexplained cash deposits, arguing that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition without proper explanation. The Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition based on cash deposits to the bank account, with part of it being deleted in the first appellate proceedings. The Commissioner upheld the remaining addition after considering additional evidence and finding the credits unexplained. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's decision, thus dismissing the appellant's grounds.Treatment of long term capital gain:Regarding the addition of Rs. 1,58,117 as long term capital gain, the appellant claimed it was actually a short term capital loss. The AO made the addition based on capital gain from the sale of property, which was partially relieved by the Commissioner. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner's decision was based on submissions and evidence provided by the appellant, and thus upheld the decision, dismissing the appellant's grounds.Validity of reassessment order:The appellant challenged the reassessment order passed under sections 147/144, alleging lack of valid jurisdiction and non-compliance with mandatory conditions. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on information about cash transactions and the appellant's failure to file a return for the relevant assessment year. The Commissioner upheld the AO's actions, finding the reasons for reassessment valid. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings, dismissing the appellant's grounds and upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings.Conclusion:Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the decisions made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the addition of cash deposits and long term capital gain, as well as the validity of the reassessment order. The appeal was pronounced dismissed on 17.10.2023.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
