CA Loan Bajaj Finserv
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Assessee Somashekhar Iranna Vadavadagi, Tailkota Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Vijayapura

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Bangalore

Brief :
This appeal is by the assessee directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 12.03.2019.

Citation :
ITA No.1380/Bang/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.1380/Bang/2019
Assessment Year: 2014-15

Mr. Somashekhar Iranna Vadavadagi,
Anugrapha Nilaya, Ganesh Nagar,
Behind KEB, Talikoti – 586 214.
PAN NO : APDPV 4826 P
APPELLANT 

Vs.

ITO,
Ward – 3,
Vijayapura.
RESPONDENT

Appellant by : None
Respondent by : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, D.R.
Date of Hearing : 01.12.2020
Date of Pronouncement : 01.12.2020

O R D E R

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is by the assessee directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 12.03.2019.

2. The assessee raised the following grounds:

1. The impugned appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubballi, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in passing the impugned order without affording adequate opportunity of representation to the appellant andbringing on record all the information and documents in support of the case on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is notjustified in upholding the assessment order passed u/s 144 of theAct in as much as the said assessment order is not sustainable in law on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the additionsto the extent of Rs. 57,49,010/- made by the assessing officer on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The learned Commissioner has grossly erred in effectivelyupholding and confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 53,97,810/- in respect of the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act eventhough section 69A of the Act has no applicability whatsoever on the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred inconfirming the addition of Rs. 53,97,810/- in respect of the cash deposits in the bank account by holding that the appellant hadsubmitted that he had no proof or details of customers, expenses, etc., on the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought tohave appreciated that even though there were deposits in bank account to the extent of Rs. 53,97,810/-, substantial part of these deposits came out of the earlier withdrawals from the very same bank account on the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), failed to appreciate that the major part of the cash deposits was out of the turnover of the business admittedly carried on by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case.

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 04 December 2020
Published in Income Tax
Views : 11
downloaded 3 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags
X

Do you have any Tax Queries

Submit