The case ITA No. 1688/DEL/2019 concerns Hetram Bokan, the appellant, and the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward 2(1), Gurgaon, the respondent. The dispute arises from the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2013-14, focusing on unexplained cash deposits.
The appellant challenges the reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing it was based on mere suspicion without tangible material. Further grounds include the legality of the reassessment order and errors in concluding the source of cash deposits.
During the tribunal’s review, it was noted that the appellant failed to attend the proceedings, leading to a decision based on the records available. The tribunal supported the initial reassessment, referencing various legal precedents that justified the reassessment under section 147.
The article will delve into the legal basis of the reassessment process, examining the conditions under section 147 and the appellant’s arguments against the sufficiency of evidence which led to the addition of Rs. 28,00,000 to his income.
The tribunal’s decision upheld the reassessment, dismissing the appeal based on established jurisprudence and the facts presented. This case highlights the importance of substantial evidence when challenging tax reassessment in India.
Detailed Analysis of ITA No. 1688/DEL/2019: Hetram Bokan vs ITO Ward 2(1), Gurgaon
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform