SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

147 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 144r.w.s 147of the Income tax Act and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s

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 money of the assessee within the meaning of Sec. 69 of the Act. Accordingly, on the basis of his aforesaid deliberations, the A.O vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated 30.03.2016 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,53,64,110/- a/w agriculture income of Rs. 7,88,960/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried

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 money of the assessee within the meaning of Sec. 69 of the Act. Accordingly, on the basis of his aforesaid deliberations, the A.O vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated 30.03.2016 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,53,64,110/- a/w agriculture income of Rs. 7,88,960/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained money (Cash) - Assessment year 2012-13 - One of Directors of assessee company namely 'A' was carrying Rs. 5 lakhs from Delhi to Ghaziabad for payment of wages and other normal expenses - 'A' was stopped by UP Police on border of Delhi and said cash was seized - On basis of information received from

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

money in the books of accounts in the garb of sub contract receipts. Hence, the amount of Rs 5,71,37,870/, represents unexplained credits in the books of accounts of the assessee, and its deemed income u/s 68, of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. 5. In view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

money in the books of accounts in the garb of sub contract receipts. Hence, the amount of Rs 5,71,37,870/, represents unexplained credits in the books of accounts of the assessee, and its deemed income u/s 68, of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. 5. In view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

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

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

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, "belongs to; or 7 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account

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

reassessment proceedings in this case were only based on presumption/ suspicion and were thus not validly initiated. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred by upholding the action of the AO that the reasons recorded by the AO without application of mind to the information available on record

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

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. n) 'Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar' [2004] 268 ITR 332/137 Taxman 479 (Bom.), The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are to be examined on a standalone basis and nothing

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

147 of the act. Thus, ground numbers 3, 5 and 6 of the appellant assessee are rejected. 12. In ground No. 7 to 10 the appellant challenged that the amount deposited was out of sale proceeds of Agricultural land of HUF and the AO has committed an error in reopening the case of individuals/appellant and hence the reassessment is liable

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

147 of the act. Thus, ground numbers 3, 5 and 6 of the appellant assessee are rejected. 12. In ground No. 7 to 10 the appellant challenged that the amount deposited was out of sale proceeds of Agricultural land of HUF and the AO has committed an error in reopening the case of individuals/appellant and hence the reassessment is liable

SH. KULDEEP SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 579/Asr/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

reassessment u/s 148 without fulfilling the mandatory requirement of service of notice u/s 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961 within stipulated period as provided by law as well as reopening based on AIR information only and the Worthy CIT(A) has impliedly approved it without going through the facts of the case and adjudicate this ground of appeal without application

SHRI RAGHU RAJ CHETHLEY,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, MOGA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.645(Asr)/2018 Assessment Year:2011-12

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. (Not pressed) B. That the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining and addition of Rs.50 lacs made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. (Not pressed) C. That both AO & CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no cash credit appearing in the books of accounts

MANDEEP SINGH S/O SH. NARINDER SINGH VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TARMALA MALOUT DISTRICT MUKTSAR,MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5) MUKTSAR JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. However, it is seen from the assessment order para 4 that in the instant case, the said amount has been also added back in the I.T.A. No. 645/Asr/2024 6 Assessment Year: 2012-13 hands of the assessee on protective basis and assessment completed by accepting the returned income at Rs.1

SMT. ASHA CHHABRA,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the ground no

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated to verify the source of investment in the purchase of plot and construction of house. Hence, the reasons to believe as recorded by the AO were infact reasons to suspect. d) The finding of the CIT(A) in para-3.2 that "At the stage of notice, it is 'the believe' of the AO based on facts

SHRI SURINDER SINGH DECEASED,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora

reassessment proceedings, initiated through issue of notice u/s. 148(1) on 26.3.2009, his wife Smt. Jatinder Kaur, filed a reply dated 08.12.2009 (through her counsel, Sh. Nagpal), reproduced at page 3 of the assessment order, stating to be not aware of any such bank account of her late husband and, in any case, of any such money belonging

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, was not pressed during hearing, with the ld. AR making an endorsement to that effect on the appeal memo. 3.2 We, next, consider the merits of the impugned addition, since sustained. Even as observed by the Bench during hearing, it is wholly incorrect to say, and which forms the basis of the assessee’s legal stand assumed before