DR. HARPRIT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

2 of 11 has framed assessment by applying different possibilities and there is no specific charge against the assessee. The addition was made under section 68 of the Act. However, same was sustained by the CIT (A) under section 69 of the Act on the ground that investment are not recorded in books of accounts. Since the change

SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

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

2), provisions of section 68 would apply in circumstances mentioned therein - Held, yes - Assessing Officer Thane examined bank Pass Book of assessee and treated cash [2016] 73 taxmann.com 68 deposits in bank account as unexplained cash credit (Mumbai - within meaning of section 68 and added same in Trib.) income of assessee - Whether since assessee was not maintaining

SHRI RAVINDER SACHDEVA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

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

section 68. 2. That the order passed by the AO is bad in the eyes of law as no notice u/s 148

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68 of the Act had not been discharged by her. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in holding that income declared by the assessee was to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 5. That the order of the Learned Pr. Commissioner

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68 of the Act had not been discharged by her. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in holding that income declared by the assessee was to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 5. That the order of the Learned Pr. Commissioner

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68 of the Act had not been discharged by her. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar has grossly erred in law in holding that income declared by the assessee was to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 5. That the order of the Learned Pr. Commissioner

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

68, however, Commissioner exercising his revisionary power under section 263 set aside assessment orders directing Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment after conducting detailed enquiry and upon satisfying on genuneness of transaction - Whether order of Commissioner was not based on irrelevant considerations and further in present circumstances, he was not obliged to positively indicate deficiencies in assessment order

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

2(47)(v) inasmuch as the possession continues to be retained by the assessee. The assessee has been, we observe, subsequent to the issue of notice u/s. 148 on 11.02.2014, allowed several opportunities to produce the so-called 'buyer' of the property (who is stated to have paid the assessee Rs. 31 lacs in cash and, further, without taking possession

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

2 Vikrant Kansal Prop. V. K. Teleservices v ITO relevant year, and which formed the basis for the assessee returning a business income of Rs.3,73,550 for the year on 23.03.2011 in response to notice u/s. 148. The basis of the said notice was the cash deposits (at Rs.11,63,500) in the bank account (with Centurion Bank

SH.SHREE GURU NANAK DEV QUIN-CENTENARY CELEBRATION COMMITTEE,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Asr/2019 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shree Guru Nanak Dev Vs. Ito(Exemptions) Ward, Quin-Centenary Celebrations Jalandhar Committee, Guru Nanak Bhawan, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aawfs 2431 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (" यथ" / Respondent) : Shri S.K.Mukhi, Advocate िनधा"!रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By : Shri M.P.Singh, Cit-Dr राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सुनवाई क" तार'ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार'ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Ludhiana, Dated 08.02.2019, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Erroneous & Perverse & Thus Needs To Be Quashed. 2. That The Issuance Of Notice U/S 147/148 Is Bad In Law As No New Material Was There With The Ao To Initiate Action U/S 147 & The Proceedings In Furtherance Of Illegal Notice Are Void Ab-Initio & Deserve To Be Set Aside. 3. That The Addition Made By Ao & Partially Confirmed By Cit (A) Is Devoid Of Proper Appreciation Of Facts On Record & Against Express Provisions Of Law & Deserve To Be Set Aside. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Disposal Of The Present Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.06.2010 Declaring Total Income After Claiming Exemption

2,81,68,024. This has resulted into overstatement of capital fund to the tune of Rs.9805000/- (28168024-183630324) Capital Fund Details :- 31.03.2009 Rs. 18363024/- 31.03.2010 Rs. 28168024/- Unexplained Addition Rs. 9805000/- It was ascertained from the assessment record that assessee has not filed explanation alongwith documents/evidence about source of his increase in the capital fund. Resultantly, assessee has taken

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

2) obtained by the AO from JCIT. The sanction has been granted by writing the words ‘ yes, satisfied’. Page 66 of the paper-book. 5. The assessee did not raise the ground before CIT(A) agitating the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional grounds as well as admission of additional evidence

M/S PARADISE MULTIPLEX CUM VILLAS. PVT. LTD,ABOHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II(3), ABOHAR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA No

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

2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not deciding the ground No.3 & 4 reproduced as under: Ground No. 3 “That the learned AO has erred in law and on facts by making reassessment in response to notice under section 148 without considering

M/S PARADIES MULTIPLEXS CUM VILLAS PVT LTD ,ABHOAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) , ABOHAR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA No

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

2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not deciding the ground No.3 & 4 reproduced as under: Ground No. 3 “That the learned AO has erred in law and on facts by making reassessment in response to notice under section 148 without considering

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

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

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

section 68 of the Act cannot apply to bank statement etc. which makes the addition as bad in law. 8. That the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the ex- parte assessment orders passed by the ld. AO u/s. 144 dated 27.12.2017 in violation of principles of natural justice because neither notice u/s. 148

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

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

section 68 of the Act cannot apply to bank statement etc. which makes the addition as bad in law. 8. That the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the ex- parte assessment orders passed by the ld. AO u/s. 144 dated 27.12.2017 in violation of principles of natural justice because neither notice u/s. 148

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

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

68 and the addition made is unjustified and unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the worthy CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same without appreciating the facts on record and arguments which took place during the course of hearing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of these circumstances, the addition confirmed

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

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

68 and the addition made is unjustified and unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the worthy CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same without appreciating the facts on record and arguments which took place during the course of hearing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of these circumstances, the addition confirmed

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

68 and the addition made is unjustified and unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the worthy CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same without appreciating the facts on record and arguments which took place during the course of hearing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of these circumstances, the addition confirmed