SMT. SARIKA SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Cash Deposits to be explained, which was entirely left to be inquired into during the course of assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) held that "...where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry

RATNESH KUMAR JAIN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ASHOK NAGAR, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment is bad in\nlaw as the assessment was reopened on the ground that the assessee\nhas shown lower turnover, while the additions have been made on the\ngrounds of unexplained cash deposits

SHREE RAMRAJA HOMES PVT.LTD,JHANSI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit, Shree Ramraja Homes Circle-2(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Sanjay Place, Agra. 7, Om Building, New Road, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh- 284002 Pan-Aapcs3955G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Utsav Sehgal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 28.03.2024, In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10165707 For Assessment Year 2017- 18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, Inshort) Dated 21.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate & Filed Its Return Shree Ramraja Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Of Income On 28.09.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.46,53,593/-. The Assessing Officer Has Information In Its Possession That Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During The Demonetization Period Of Rs.34,00,000/-, Therefore, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Way Of Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 31.03.2021 After Recording The Reasons & Taking Necessary Approvals From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income In Response To Notice U/S 148 Nor Made Any Response To The Notices Issued By The Ao On Various Occasions Including Show Cause Notice Dated 08.03.2022. Therefore, The Ao Has Completed The Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act By Making Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

deposited out of the withdrawal made from time to time from its regular bank account and was redeposited when the demonetization was announced. After considering the submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed part relief to the assessee wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has reduced the addition to Rs.31,94,000/- from Rs.34,00,000/-. The relief was granted towards

SAROJ,MAINPURI vs. I.T.O WARD 2(5), MAINPURI

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment proceedings. The assessee in response thereof submitted bank statement, but failed to furnish any evidence regarding source of cash deposits

DEEPAK KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O SHRI LATE RATAN LAL AGRAWAL,TIKAMGARH vs. ITO, TIKAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Deepak Kumar Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward No. 12, Purani Tikamgarh Tehsil, New Housing Board, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Axapa3069L Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

cash deposit to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- and show-caused the Assessee as to why the remaining sum of Rs. 15,25,500/- be not added to the total income as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. No response was filed by the Assessee thereon and accordingly, the learned AO completed the reassessment

SARMAN RAI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(3), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

deposited cash of Rs.13,90,000/- in his bank account maintained with PNB, Baruasagar, Jhansi. The Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated reassessment

YOGENDRA SHARMA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

cash deposits from undisclosed sources and with regard to short term capital gains, he observed that the assessee has filed a valuation report of the property at Rs.11,14,000/-. Same was reproduced in the appellate order from page 12 to page 15 of the order. Based on the above valuation, after giving notice to the assessee and after considering

CHANDRA PRAKASH GOPLANI,BENGALURU vs. ITO 2(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

cash deposits in the saving bank account maintained by assessee with ICICI Bank, Sanjay Place, Agra, which was treated by the Assessing Officer as an unexplained income of the assessee.The said reassessment

JAY SINGH,MORENA vs. ITO-1, MORENA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Jay Singh, Vs. Ito, Gram Khaneta, Maharajpur, Ward-1, Morena, Madhya Pradesh Morena (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Cfwps1529H

cash deposit of Rs 22,01,000/- in his bank account. Since no return of income was filed by the assessee, the learned AO formed a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment and accordingly sought to reopen the case vide issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on 29-3-2017, which stood served upon

CHAND KHAN,SADA SHIV NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(2) , CITY CENTER

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Cash Deposit 19/07/2011 Rs. 15,000/- Through Cheque 30/07/2011 Rs. 55,000/- 11. That the appellant relied the following case law in the facts and circumstance narrated in the appeal. Case Law :- (1) Baldeep Singh Vs. ITO ward 3(2) 2019 Taxman com 108 (Ludhiana Tribunal) (2) Narayana Shibaroor Shibaraya Vs. ITO Appeal No. 684/2022 order dated 23/11/2022 (Bangalore Tribunal

BHAGWAN SWAROOP,ALIGARH vs. THE I.T.O. WARD 4(1)(1), ALIGARH , ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment was also made u/s. 144 of the Act, for which the show cause notices issued, as noted above, do not give adequate time for response. Such hurried proceedings further curtailed the assessee’s ability to properly explain and substantiate the source of impugned cash deposits

NEERAJ KUMAR,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(3), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshneeraj Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 18/24, Ghadi Hussaini Ward-2(1)(3), Prakash Nagar, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajwpn8393C Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Garg, Adv Shri Pradumn Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

reassessment is void ab initio 4. Because the assessment framed ex-parte under section 147/144 is bad in law, since notices were never served at the correct address and the appellant was denied proper opportunity of being heard. 5. Because the reopening under section 147 is mechanical, without application of mind, based on no new tangible material, and in violation

SAGAR DWELLINGS P LTD,NEAR SUN TEMPLE GWALIOR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

deposited mostly through RTGS and immediately withdrawn in cash. The average balance in this bank account was Rs.1,01,024/- only. (ii). The field enquiries conducted by the Department revealed that no concern named M/s. Jai Baba Gurudev Traders ever existed at the given address, which was A-4/74, Singh Market, Parking Number-1, Transport Nagar, Near Krishna Lodge

SUDHINDRA PAL SINGH,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), ETAH, ETAH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sudhindra Pal Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bara Bhondela, At Bara Ward-3(2), Bhondela, Awagarh, Etah Etah- 207 301, Etah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ekyps0396P

cash deposits are to be treated to have been made out of income from undisclosed sources. Based on this, the learned AO reopened the assessment of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act vide issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 24.03.2017. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment together with the approval granted by the learned Principal

SHAHID UMAR,ETAH vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshahid Umar, Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3)(3), Village Mohanpura, Kasganj, Up Kasganj, Etah, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abwpu0607Q Assessee By : Shri S. K. Goyal, Adv Shri Tarang Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

cash deposits/ withdrawals of Rs 2.33 crores and accordingly the Learned AO initiated reassessment proceedings as per law. The Learned

BIKESH KUMAR,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(1) , FIROZABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbikesh Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nagla Bhoop Nasirpur, Ward-2(2)(1), Shikhabad Firozabad, Firozabad Firozabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bglpk0327A Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

reassessment under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 21-3-2022 by adding the differential sum of cash deposits

OM PRAKASH,HATHRAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS, HATHRAS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Om Prakash, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village Baramai, Ward-4(3)(4), Sadabad, Hathras Hathras (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dkbpp7713K

reassessment. I direct accordingly. 8. Even on merits, it is not known how the learned AO had arrived at the figure of Rs 15,00,000/- for making addition on account of unexplained cash deposit

RAJESH TYAGI,AMBAH vs. ITO WARD 1, MORENA, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Assessment Unit, S/O Laxmi Narayan Tyagi Gavri National Faceless Assessment Service, Gulab Ka Pura Ambah Centre, Income Tax Officer, Distt. Morena Ward-1, Morena Pan : Bmmpt3132K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sandeep, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Act is bad in law, invalid and void-ab-initio. 7. BECAUSE under the facts and circumstance and in law the Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 5,60,000/-on account of unexplained money for cash deposit