Case LawHigh Court › Iapl/14/2022 Of Sukhpal Singh v. Income...

Iapl/14/2022 Of Sukhpal Singh v. Income Tax Officer

High Court 23 Feb 2022 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisdb_16012018
Parties
Iapl/14/2022 Of Sukhpal Singh v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
23 Feb 2022
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Iapl/14/2022 Of Sukhpal Singh v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Consequently,the appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 14 of 2022 Appellant :- Sukhpal SinghRespondent :- Income Tax OfficerCounsel for Appellant :- Rishi Raj KapoorCounsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant - assesseeand Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent - Income TaxDepartment. The dispute raised by the appellant - assessee is with regard to cashdeposit of Rs.19,90,000/- in the bank account on 28.05.2008, which hasbeen treated to be an unexplained investment and consequently was addedin the income of the petitioner. Concurrent findings of fact have beenrecorded by the Tribunal and the authorities below that the cash deposit inthe bank account on 28.05.2008 is unexplained. The CIT has also givendetails of the sale deeds and considered it in its entirety and rejected thecontention of the petitioner. The findings recorded by the Tribunal and theauthorities below are concurrent findings of fact. No substantial questionof law is involved in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Consequently,the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.2.2022NLY
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan