Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Akhilesh Singhal Vs ITO (ITAT Dehradun)
Related Assessment Year : 2014-15
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Akhilesh Singhal Vs ITO (ITAT Dehradun) Reassessment Quashed & Penalties Deleted – ITAT Dehradun Holds Notice u/s 148 Invalid for Wrong Email & Address Assessee filed return declaring ₹22 lakh. AO reopened the case on 29.03.2021 u/s 147 & completed ex-parte assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 144B, adding ₹27.86 lakh as unexplained bank deposits u/s 69A. CIT(A) upheld the addition. Before Tribunal, Assessee raised an additional legal ground that the notice u/s 148 was never served, as it was sent to an old postal address & wrong e-mail ID despite AO having the correct details from l...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.

Author Bio

CA Vijayakumar Shetty qualified in 1994 and in practice since then. Founding partner of Shetty & Co. He is a graduate from St Aloysius College, Mangalore . View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Penny Stock Addition Fails: ITAT Says Suspicion Cannot Replace Evidence Borrowed Satisfaction: ITAT Quashes Penny Stock Additions in Multiple Family Cases Statement Alone Cannot Justify ‘On-Money’ Addition: ITAT Mumbai Genuine ITR Mistake Cannot Lead to Tax on Wrong Income: ITAT Mumbai AO Cannot Reopen on the Same Material Examined in U/s 153C Assessment: ITAT Quashes ₹2.90 Crore Addition View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930