SHRIMATI AMARJIT KAUR W/O BUGAR SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

deposit of cash in the bank account of the Appellant assessee and then at that stage per se, he is 24 Amarjit Kaur v. ITO not required to prove or arrive at the conclusion that the said cash would necessarily been concealed income of the appellant but it the stage to initiate the reassessment

SHRIMATI. LATA NARANG,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

deposit which had already been examined by the AO during the course of proceeding held u/s 147/148 as treating the order passed by the AO u/s 147/143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The AO during the course of proceedings u/s 147/148 has enquired about the source of cash and after verification had passed the order

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

cash and cheque deposit in the bank account by the appellant company has been based on specific information for reason to belief by the AO under section 147 of the Act. Thus, the Citation relied by the Ld. AR would not be of any help to the appellant assessee. 11. From the above, it is evident that

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

cash deposited in Bank a/c amounting to Rs.48,35,500.00/- has escaped assessment. AO proceeded on fallacious assumption that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income. The reassessment

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

cash deposited in Bank a/c amounting to Rs.48,35,500.00/- has escaped assessment. AO proceeded on fallacious assumption that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income. The reassessment

SMT. BANI TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

cash deposited in Bank a/c amounting to Rs.48,35,500.00/- has escaped assessment. AO proceeded on fallacious assumption that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income. The reassessment

SHRI DHARMINDER SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-4 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceedings and the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer is held to be valid thereof. Accordingly, the legal issues raised in ground nos. 1 to 7 are rejected. 7. Next issue pertains to the source of disputed unexplained cash deposit

SHRI MOHAMMAD ABBAS ASHRAF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment is based on AIR information, rather on any tangible material. 3. The ld. AO erred in both facts & laws by deeming cash deposits

SHRI HARBANS SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD1(30, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

cash deposit to the extent of Rs.65,00,000/-. 6. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has granted part relief to the appellant assessee by observing vide para 2 to 5 as under: “2.0 The reassessment

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment u/s 148 of the Act due to the reason of “cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee

CHAND JEWELLERS,NAKODAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 574/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chand Jewellers, Bazar Sarafan Vs. Ito-Ward Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [Pan:-Aahfc5908J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Bajaj, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Reassessment proceedings were initiated ( as per procedure ) vide notice u/s 148 dated 29/03/2021, and in course of scrutiny , books of accounts ( cash book , ledger, stock register ) produced and examined, and the cash deposit

SAINIK COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,SAINIK COLONY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD-1, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

cash deposit in bank amounting to Rs.10.03 lakhs, investment in time deposit (F.D.) amounting to Rs.87.66 lakhs, FD interest from bank amounting to Rs.9.09 lakhs and income from rent on Plant & Machinery amounting to Rs.1.77 lakhs. 4. The reassessment

SAINIK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

cash deposit in bank amounting to Rs.10.03 lakhs, investment in time deposit (F.D.) amounting to Rs.87.66 lakhs, FD interest from bank amounting to Rs.9.09 lakhs and income from rent on Plant & Machinery amounting to Rs.1.77 lakhs. 4. The reassessment

SMT..ANURADHA,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1), PATHANKOT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

reassessment notices were issued were not found to exist , and for support he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of CIT vs Atlas Cycle Industries reported 180 ITR page 319, and prayed for deletion of the assessment. 10.5 The Ld. AR further, submitted that mere deposit of cash

SHRI KULDIP SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment, to accept cash deposited in bank as trading transactions to assess net profit thereon, the ld. PCIT erred in setting

SH. FARUKH JEHAN ZEB ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANT NAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

deposit of cash into bank account then at that stage he is not required to prove that the said cash would necessarily be proved as concealed at the stage of reopening of the assessment. In the case of “ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. 9. Limited. 291 ITR 500, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “Section

DIVAY MOHINDRU,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 129/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Divay Mohindru, Prop. M/S Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1), Mahavir Abhushans, Deep Jalandhar. Market Juakhana Bazar Kalan, Jalandhar. [Pan:-Advpm1552D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Asharay Sarna, Ca. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.01.2026

reassessment u/s 148 and after verification and examination of all documentary evidences such as sales register, cash book, bank statement and all incidental document of purchase and stock , gross receipt from sales has been accepted at Rs.74.09 crores and assessment has been completed on the returned income of Rs.6,21,000/- (which has been cited as a comparative case because

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

deposit in bank duly recorded in the books of assessee company and all the bank account duly reflected in the balance sheet of assessee company filed before the department at the time of filing of return of income. Moreover, no such incriminating material was found and seized during search which suggest that cash was generated from some other sources then