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

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

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

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 KASHMIR SINGH S/O SHRI SHINGARA SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), AMRITSAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

cash deposits of Rs. 43.47 lac (supra) in question were sourced out of the agriculture income of the assessee, had thus refrained from drawing any adverse inferences and making any addition in his hands. However, we find that after framing of the aforesaid assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) dated 08.11.2016, the AO had thereafter proceeded with the reassessment

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

SH. VIKRANT KANSHAL,BATHINDA vs. THE ICNOMET-AX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

reassessment proceedings in the case of MM on the assessee owning the cash deposits in her — his employee’s, bank

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

SHRIMATI MANJIT KAUR,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

cash deposit in bank accounts by itself is insufficient for mounting of reassessment, it would be useful to refer to a series

SHRI BALJINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

cash deposit in bank accounts by itself is insufficient for mounting of reassessment, it would be useful to refer to a series

SHRIMATI MEERA AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JALANDHAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

reassessment can only be made for six assessment years and this assessment year is the seventh assessment year for which no notice under section 153A can be issued which is mandatory for assessment under section 153A of the Act, due to which assessment becomes void. P a g e | 2 ITA No. 511/Asr./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 Smt.Meera Aggarwal

SHRI SURAT SINGH ,SHAHKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAKODAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 387/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Sh. Surat Singh S/O Sh. Lachhman Vs. Ito, Singh Village Sidhupur, P.O. Nakodar. Lohian Khas Tehsil Shahkot. [Pan: Czqps4027J] (Appellant) (Respendent)

deposits. 3. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the assessment order, assessees submissions and remand report of the AO, stated that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on the information available in the ITD database that cash

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 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