Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Birju Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Birju Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Ex-Parte 144 Order & 115BBE Addition Set Aside- Demonetisation Cash Deposit Addition Remanded—ITAT Patna Gives Assessee One Final Chance Assessee, engaged in jewellery & mobile business, filed ROI declaring ₹5,24,260. Case was selected under CASS. Due to non-compliance to statutory notices, AO completed ex-parte assessment u/s 144, treated cash deposits of ₹49,80,700 made during demonetisation as unexplained u/s 68, taxed it @ 60% u/s 115BBE & assessed income at ₹55,04,960. Before CIT(A), despite four hearing notices, Assessee failed to fur...
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Your email address will not be published.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