SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

credit received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. It was further submitted that even if any addition is called for, it can be made only in the hands of the mother of the assessee who has unfortunately expired. 20. Regarding judgement

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

credit received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. It was further submitted that even if any addition is called for, it can be made only in the hands of the mother of the assessee who has unfortunately expired. 20. Regarding judgement

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

credit received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. It was further submitted that even if any addition is called for, it can be made only in the hands of the mother of the assessee who has unfortunately expired. 20. Regarding judgement

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

credit received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. It was further submitted that even if any addition is called for, it can be made only in the hands of the mother of the assessee who has unfortunately expired. 20. Regarding judgement

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

credit received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. It was further submitted that even if any addition is called for, it can be made only in the hands of the mother of the assessee who has unfortunately expired. 20. Regarding judgement

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

credit received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. It was further submitted that even if any addition is called for, it can be made only in the hands of the mother of the assessee who has unfortunately expired. 20. Regarding judgement

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

credit received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. It was further submitted that even if any addition is called for, it can be made only in the hands of the mother of the assessee who has unfortunately expired. 20. Regarding judgement

M/S SURYA WORLD EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTE,RAJPURA vs. DCIT , CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both for non- prosecution and on merits

Bench: Us. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & To Avoid Repetition, We Are Taking Ita No. 879/Del/2018 As The Lead Appeal & Reproducing The Facts, Grounds Raised & The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)Karnal, For Completeness. 2. The Case Was Listed For Hearing On 29/5/2025 , When The Matter Was Called, There Was No Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee. It Is Noted From The Record That Earlier Mr. Tej Mohan, Advocate, Was Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, No Adjournment Request Or Explanation For Non-Appearance Has Been Filed. The Conduct Of The Assessee Indicates A Lack Of Interest In Prosecuting The Appeal. However, Considering Non- Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Many Earlier Occasions & The Nature Of The Issues Involved, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits As Well.

unexplained cash credits in the bank account is confirmed.” 4. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee is a habitual defaulter who has consistently failed to appear during the course of the assessment/appellate proceedings. It was further submitted that, by the provisions of the Advocates Act,1961, once the Ld. AR informed the assessee that for the withdrawal

M/S SURYA WORLD EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTE,RAJPURA vs. DCIT , CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both for non- prosecution and on merits

Bench: Us. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & To Avoid Repetition, We Are Taking Ita No. 879/Del/2018 As The Lead Appeal & Reproducing The Facts, Grounds Raised & The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)Karnal, For Completeness. 2. The Case Was Listed For Hearing On 29/5/2025 , When The Matter Was Called, There Was No Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee. It Is Noted From The Record That Earlier Mr. Tej Mohan, Advocate, Was Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, No Adjournment Request Or Explanation For Non-Appearance Has Been Filed. The Conduct Of The Assessee Indicates A Lack Of Interest In Prosecuting The Appeal. However, Considering Non- Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Many Earlier Occasions & The Nature Of The Issues Involved, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits As Well.

unexplained cash credits in the bank account is confirmed.” 4. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee is a habitual defaulter who has consistently failed to appear during the course of the assessment/appellate proceedings. It was further submitted that, by the provisions of the Advocates Act,1961, once the Ld. AR informed the assessee that for the withdrawal

M/S SURYA WORLD EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTE,RAJPURA vs. DCIT , CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both for non-\nprosecution and on merits

Charitable Institute,\nNH-1, Village Bapror, Rajpura\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADAS4869H\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nबनाम\nThe Dy. CIT\nCentral Circle-1, Chandigarh\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nNone\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nSmt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 29/05/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 03/06/2025\nआदेश

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

cash, thus, violating the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act; that this occasion, was based only on surmises; that in the absence of any material to support this view, such view taken by the taxing authorities, that the purchases amount was liable to be disallowed under the provisions of Section 40A(3)of the Act, could

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

cash, thus, violating the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act; that this occasion, was based only on surmises; that in the absence of any material to support this view, such view taken by the taxing authorities, that the purchases amount was liable to be disallowed under the provisions of Section 40A(3)of the Act, could

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

cash, thus, violating the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act; that this occasion, was based only on surmises; that in the absence of any material to support this view, such view taken by the taxing authorities, that the purchases amount was liable to be disallowed under the provisions of Section 40A(3)of the Act, could

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

Trust, yet it was admitted fact that no search\noperation was conducted in premises of assessee - Besides, no panchnama was\ndrawn in pursuance of warrant of authorization in name of assessee in his\nindividual capacity - Whether, on facts, conditions precedent for initiating\nproceedings under section 153A against assessee in his individual status were\nnot complied with and, therefore, impugned proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

Trust, yet it was admitted fact that no search\noperation was conducted in premises of assessee - Besides, no panchnama was\ndrawn in pursuance of warrant of authorization in name of assessee in his\nindividual capacity - Whether, on facts, conditions precedent for initiating\nproceedings under section 153A against assessee in his individual status were\nnot complied with and, therefore, impugned proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

Trust, yet it was admitted fact that no search\noperation was conducted in premises of assessee - Besides, no panchnama was\ndrawn in pursuance of warrant of authorization in name of assessee in his\nindividual capacity - Whether, on facts, conditions precedent for initiating\nproceedings under section 153A against assessee in his individual status were\nnot complied with and, therefore, impugned proceedings