SHRI RAJ KUMAR ( M/S RADHIKA SALES CORP ), AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (3), AMRITSAR

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

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

section 145(3) on the ground that the I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 9 Assessment Year: 2017-18 assessee has not furnished the sales bills. That the addition of Rs 2,74,00,000/- was made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposit and the same is taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act at the rate

HOSHIARPUR TRADERS ,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

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

67. Also, the e-Proceedings Response Acknowledgment is annexed in APB page no. 62 to 63. 4.3 The ld. Counsel in argument further mentioned the relevant paragraph of the order of ld. PCIT u/s 263 in page no. 8 which is extracted as below: I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 12 Assessment Year: 2017-18 “XII). During the entire assessment proceedings, no independent verification

M/S SANT BABA BHAG SINGH MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE - 1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 432/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Act. Section 115 BBE shall, consequently, becomes superfluous. The assessee, therefore, who has challenged this aspect per Gd. 6 before us (Gd. 5 before the ld. CIT(A)), ought to have the benefit of the floor level qua this sum, or any other for 7 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society v. Dy. CIT that

SH. SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Soodita No.105/Asr./2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09)

Section 68. That our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand'N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67

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

section 68 - Held, yes. 5 Bombay High It is fairly well settled that when money is deposited in Court a bank, the relationship that is constituted between the banker and the customer is one of debtor and creditor Commissioner and not of trustee and beneficiary. Applying this Of Income-Tax, principle, the pass book supplied by the bank

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"

67 (Bombay) in support of contention that no addition under section 68 can be made when no Dr. Harprit

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

section 68 while seeking the assessee’s explanation as to nature and source of receipt of money, is to no moment. The principle is in fact well-settled. Reference in this context may be made to the decision in P.K.Palanisamy vs. N. Arumugham & Anr. (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2308 of 2009, dated July 23, 2009), wherein

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

68 of the Act and without considering the facts that no books of accounts have been maintained by the assessee. 7. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” The facts of the case

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

68 of the Act and without considering the facts that no books of accounts have been maintained by the assessee. 7. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” The facts of the case

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 69 of the Act are entirely inapplicable.” 6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 7 7. In this ground no. 7, the ld. AR for the assessee specifically mentioned that the assessee was not maintaining any books of account. The addition was made on basis of the bank

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 69 of the Act are entirely inapplicable.” 6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 7 7. In this ground no. 7, the ld. AR for the assessee specifically mentioned that the assessee was not maintaining any books of account. The addition was made on basis of the bank

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

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

Section 68. As observed hereinabove, our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand'N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67

M/S. RAJ DEV ,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FARIDKOT

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

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

68 sans valid and proper books of account of assessee is invalid - Held, yes [Paras 6.2, 6.4 and 8][ln favour of assessee] ii. Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment (Cross examination) - Assessment year 2015-16 - Whether where Page 16 of 17 revenue strongly relies on statements of certain persons to implicate an assessee, principles

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

section 68 of the Act are not attracted on cash deposits in saving bank account with banks. Reliance is being placed on a) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHAICHAND H. GANDHI HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY SOURCE : (1983) 141 ITR 67

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

section 68 of the Act are not attracted on cash deposits in saving bank account with banks. Reliance is being placed on a) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHAICHAND H. GANDHI HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY SOURCE : (1983) 141 ITR 67

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

section 68 of the Act are not attracted on cash deposits in saving bank account with banks. Reliance is being placed on a) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHAICHAND H. GANDHI HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY SOURCE : (1983) 141 ITR 67

SMT. KIRAN MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 69, 69A, etc. can in fact be invoked only where the Revenue discharges the primary onus on it to show the assessee to be owner of the relevant asset. As explained in Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), the same seek to provide statutory recognition to the principles of common law jurisprudence as enshrined

SH. BARAT PAL SOOD,,PHAGWARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PHAGWARA

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

67 wherein it was held that the bank pass book was not the book of the assessee. Section 68

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

67 ITR 84 and Smt. Tara Devi\nAggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). The underlying principle which emerges\nfrom these judgments is that if an assessment order is passed without making any\nenquiring, then such an order would be erroneous.\n26.\nThis provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or\nerror committed