Pvt. Ltd. and ITO-Raigarh v. Kaushal Agrawal

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

…v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All). 13 ITA 173/JP/2019 _ Kailash Chand Yadav Vs ITO iv. Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.) v. Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT (2008) 8 DTR 38 (RAJ.), (217 CTR 354) vi. Aravali Trading Co. v/s ITO 8 DTR 199 vii. CIT V/S Abdul Aziz 72 DTR 216(Chhattisgarh) viii. Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. M/s. ARL Infratech, Ltd., (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 24/2014) decided on 28.09.2016 (Raj.) ix. Muralidhar Lahoriaml v/s CIT 280 ITR 512(Guj.) With regard to reopening of the case, the ld. AR has submitted that the reasons recorded itself was wrong, incorrect and without material on record at th…

Radhey Ram Godara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for Statistical purposes

…stworthy or lacked credibility, AO merely concluded on basis of enquiry report, which collected certain facts and statements that income sought to be added fell within description of Section 68—Impugned order upheld—Appeal dismissed 9.4 In CIT V/S Abdul Aziz 72 DTR 216(Chhattisgarh)- Held that no independed inquiry was made by the a AO to disprove the creditworthiness of the creditors, as established by the affidavits and statement showing source of income. Hence CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. 9.5. In the case of Prakash Chand Nahata v/s CIT 301 ITR 134(MP) held that “In the obtaining factual m…

Tirupati College of Technical Education Society, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with

…income. The Assessing Officer failed to invoke the provisions under Section 131 of the Act, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that it was sufficient to delete the addition. Also refer CIT v/s Fair Finvest Pvt. Ltd 357 ITR 146(Del) 18.5 In CIT V/S Abdul Aziz 72 DTR 216(Chhattisgarh)- Held that no independed inquiry was made by the a AO to disprove the creditworthiness of the creditors, as established by the affidavits and 37 M/s.Tirupati College of Technical Education Society vs LD. CIT( Exemption), Jaipur statement showing source of income. Hence CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. 18.6 In the cas…