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

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

reassessment are held to be devoid of any merits and substance and therefore, same are as such rejected. 12. In ground no. 3 & 4, the assessee has challenged approval granted by the CIT u/s 151 for issuing notice u/s 147 as bad in law. This issue of approval granted u/s 151 of the Income

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

deposited of cash in bank accounts by itself is not sufficient reason as contemplated u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act: 7. It is well settled in law that reasons, as recorded for reopening 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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Asstt.Year:2011-12 were initiated in your case as you did not file any information with respect to the source of cash deposited by you at Rs.35,50,000/- in your savings bank during the relevant period. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, you filed the income

GURPAL SINGH SIDHU,NEAR GOVT SCHOOL vs. ITO WARD 1(2), BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

reassessment notice was unjustified The facts of this case were entirely different than that of present case of the appellant. In the present case, the appellant could not explain source and nature of cash deposits before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer correctly proceeded with re-assessment proceedings and completed the assessment accordingly. 5.5. The appellant argued that

SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated qua the cash deposits of Rs. 34,13,125/- in the assessee’s bank a/c with State Bank of Patiala, Branch: Grain Market, Bathinda, however, the addition was thereafter made by him vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147

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

u/s 2 (24) of the Act. i. The Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment wrongly presuming that 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 proceedings could not be resorted to unless there was reason to believe, rather than suspect, that income

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

u/s 2 (24) of the Act. i. The Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment wrongly presuming that 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 proceedings could not be resorted to unless there was reason to believe, rather than suspect, that income

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

u/s 2 (24) of the Act. i. The Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment wrongly presuming that 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 proceedings could not be resorted to unless there was reason to believe, rather than suspect, that income

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

147 based merely on the information of cash deposit was deemed not tenable in law. The case, DineshkumarDalsangbhai Chaudhary Kankavati Society Vs ITO, revolved around the reopening of the assessment based only on the information that the assessee had deposited cash in the bank. 7 Mohammad Abbas Ashraf v. ITO The ITAT Ahmedabad reviewed the validity of reopening the assessment

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

u/s 147 permissible even if AO gathered reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment from the very same record which has been subject matter of completed asstt. 5.1.4 On the basis of discussion above, it can be safely concluded that the facts of each case are different and it cannot be universally concluded that simple information cash deposited

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

u/s 147 permissible even if AO gathered reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment from the very same record which has been subject matter of completed asstt. 5.1.4 On the basis of discussion above, it can be safely concluded that the facts of each case are different and it cannot be universally concluded that simple information cash deposited

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 amounting to Rs. 60,00,000/- and time deposit of Rs. 30,00,000 during the year under consideration.” The Ld. AO during the course of re-assessment proceedings had verified all the details pertaining to the case

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

147 of Income Tax Act. The observation of the AO that all cash deposits in the bank account may not be the income of the assessee and therefore any assumption that it has escaped assessment would be fallacious has to also at the same time need to be considered from the viewpoint that if a large cash has been deposited

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal issue as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 698/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 on 23.05.2023 is bad in law since, the jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 on 25.07.2022 is bad in law. 5. That the CIT(A) has erred in not taking cognizance of the details of receipts and expenditure furnished in the return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s 148 whereby it was made clear that receipts

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

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

cash deposits in his bank account had came forth with a concocted story and had tried to shift the burden of explaining the source of the same to another person who did not even recognize him, the A.O held the amount of Rs. 63.33 lac that was deposited by the assessee over the year under consideration in his bank

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

cash deposits in his saving account which has not been considered by learned CIT(A). c). Without prejudice to issues raised in (a) & (b) above, even otherwise also no adverse inference can be drawn in the case of the assessee since her husband is independent assessee. 7. That observation of Id. CIT(A) in para 4.9 of the appellate order

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

cash deposits in his saving account which has not been considered by learned CIT(A). c). Without prejudice to issues raised in (a) & (b) above, even otherwise also no adverse inference can be drawn in the case of the assessee since her husband is independent assessee. 7. That observation of Id. CIT(A) in para 4.9 of the appellate order

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

deposit of cash. 4. The Learned CIT A has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case in stating ^ that order passed against the appellant by the Assessing officer is not in pursuance of order passed by CIT u/s 263 and further that the vires of order of revision passed u/s 263 cannot be challenged in appeal against