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 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 of Rs.10,87,500.00as unexplained investments

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

reassessment proceedings and AO has made following additions: a. Rs. 7,85,324/- by not admitting the agricultural income. b. Rs. 17,40,000/- on account of unexplained investment

SHRIMATI. HARBHAJAN KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (20, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

unexplained investment as discussed above and also the income in respect of any issue which comes to the notice of the assessing officer during the course of proceedings under this section, chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2012-13 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Expl. 2(a) of section 147 of the Income

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

unexplained investment i.e. Rs.12,15,417 is taxable in Assessment Year 2005-06. In view of the above, we agree with the learned CIT (Appeals) that the facts of the assessee's case are distinguishable from the decisions cited by the assessee; that the learned CIT (Appeals) had rendered a clear ‘finding’ in the matter and that, therefore

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

unexplained investment. But then, on a careful perusal of the assessment order, we find, that the A.O had triggered the provisions of Sec. 69, for the reason, that the assessee had deposited the on-money in the bank accounts of her husband, viz. Shri. Kulwant Singh. However, as we have already vacated the view taken by the lower authorities that

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

unexplained investment. But then, on a careful perusal of the assessment order, we find, that the A.O had triggered the provisions of Sec. 69, for the reason, that the assessee had deposited the on-money in the bank accounts of her husband, viz. Shri. Kulwant Singh. However, as we have already vacated the view taken by the lower authorities that

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained investment in properties or cash transaction. Since, the AO/the Ld. CIT (A)and the Ld. DR failed to disprove the contention of the appellant and hence, the addition made merely relying on vague statement recorded during survey without substantiating the rough entries of the alleged diaries with corroborative supporting material evidence, is not justified. 13. The contention

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained investment in properties or cash transaction. Since, the AO/the Ld. CIT (A)and the Ld. DR failed to disprove the contention of the appellant and hence, the addition made merely relying on vague statement recorded during survey without substantiating the rough entries of the alleged diaries with corroborative supporting material evidence, is not justified. 13. The contention

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained investment in properties or cash transaction. Since, the AO/the Ld. CIT (A)and the Ld. DR failed to disprove the contention of the appellant and hence, the addition made merely relying on vague statement recorded during survey without substantiating the rough entries of the alleged diaries with corroborative supporting material evidence, is not justified. 13. The contention

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained investment in properties or cash transaction. Since, the AO/the Ld. CIT (A)and the Ld. DR failed to disprove the contention of the appellant and hence, the addition made merely relying on vague statement recorded during survey without substantiating the rough entries of the alleged diaries with corroborative supporting material evidence, is not justified. 13. The contention

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained investment in properties or cash transaction. Since, the AO/the Ld. CIT (A)and the Ld. DR failed to disprove the contention of the appellant and hence, the addition made merely relying on vague statement recorded during survey without substantiating the rough entries of the alleged diaries with corroborative supporting material evidence, is not justified. 13. The contention

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained investment in properties or cash transaction. Since, the AO/the Ld. CIT (A)and the Ld. DR failed to disprove the contention of the appellant and hence, the addition made merely relying on vague statement recorded during survey without substantiating the rough entries of the alleged diaries with corroborative supporting material evidence, is not justified. 13. The contention

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained investment in properties or cash transaction. Since, the AO/the Ld. CIT (A)and the Ld. DR failed to disprove the contention of the appellant and hence, the addition made merely relying on vague statement recorded during survey without substantiating the rough entries of the alleged diaries with corroborative supporting material evidence, is not justified. 13. The contention

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained investment in properties or cash transaction. Since, the AO/the Ld. CIT (A)and the Ld. DR failed to disprove the contention of the appellant and hence, the addition made merely relying on vague statement recorded during survey without substantiating the rough entries of the alleged diaries with corroborative supporting material evidence, is not justified. 13. The contention

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained investment in properties or cash transaction. Since, the AO/the Ld. CIT (A)and the Ld. DR failed to disprove the contention of the appellant and hence, the addition made merely relying on vague statement recorded during survey without substantiating the rough entries of the alleged diaries with corroborative supporting material evidence, is not justified. 13. The contention

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

unexplained investment in properties or cash transaction. Since, the AO/the Ld. CIT (A)and the Ld. DR failed to disprove the contention of the appellant and hence, the addition made merely relying on vague statement recorded during survey without substantiating the rough entries of the alleged diaries with corroborative supporting material evidence, is not justified. 13. The contention

SH. KARAMJIT SINGH RAI,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

invested Rs.68,50,000/ plus registration charges of Rs. 4,11,000/- (Rs. 72,61,000/-) in purchase of property and not explained the source thereof; the same is required to be charged to tax in the assessment year 2010-11 under the relevant provisions of Income tax. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment