Mange Ram Mittal v. ACIT

Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar vs. ITO Ward2(3), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…. He should not restrict to himself only to the evidence where the same is not possible. Here the AO restricted to himself only evidence and ignored the circumstance, facts, general approach, status etc. Kindly refer the decision of Mange Ram Mittal v/s ACIT 105 TTJ 594(Del)(SB) Hence we pray your owner to consider our contention in the interest of natural Justice and delete entire addition. On this preposition we would like to draw your kind attention on the decision of Honble ITAT in the case of Smt. Anjna Sharma v/s ITO in ITA No. 1214/Jp/2019 dt.25.11.2021. where in it has been held “ 15. After looking and c…

Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar vs. ITO Ward-4 Sikar, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…restrict to himself only to the evidence where the same is not possible. Here the AO restricted to himself only evidence and ignored the circumstance, facts, general approach, status of the assessee etc. Kindly refer the decision of Mange Ram Mittal v/s ACIT 105 TTJ 594(Del)(SB) Hence we pray your owner to consider our contention in the interest of natural Justice and delete entire addition. We also would like to submit that despite our above various submissions, legal position, details and evidences the lower authorities have not considered the same and the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the additions, which…

Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Neemkathana

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 173/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aiupy 2977 J Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 23/01/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Dated 19/12/2017 As Well As The Action Taken U/S 147/148 By The Ld. Ao Are Bad In Law, Invalid, Illegal & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Barred By Limitation & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. Rs.13,00,000/-: The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit Without Invoking Any Provision Of The It Act & By Ignoring The Material Evidences On Assumption Or Suspicion. Hence The Addition So Made By The Ld. Ao & Sustained By 2

…. He should not restrict to himself only to the evidence where the same is not possible. Here the AO restricted to himself only evidence and ignored the circumstance, facts, general approach, status etc. Kindly refer the decision of Mange Ram Mittal v/s ACIT 105 TTJ 594(Del)(SB). Hence we pray yourHonor to kindly consider our contention in the interest of natural Justice and delete entire addition. 12 ITA 173/JP/2019 _ Kailash Chand Yadav Vs ITO 11. Initial Onus Discharged: Further it is submitted that even assuming, S. 68 applies, it is only initial onus, which lay upon the assessee to prove the identity and t…

Paliwal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

…restrict to himself only to the evidence where the same is not possible. Here the AO restricted to himself only evidence and ignored the circumstance, facts, general approach, nature of teransaction etc. Kindly refer the decision of Mange Ram Mittal v/s ACIT 105 TTJ 594(Del)(SB) Hence we pray your owner to consider our contention in the interest of natural Justice and delete entire addition.” M/s. Paliwal Jewellers. 4.2. On the contrary, ld. D/R opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 4.3. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record. The ld. CI…