DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 32 Disclosure Scheme’ and to get their income into rotation / accounted for by paying 30% tax and declaring the same under the aforesaid sections

THE BAROT CO-OPERATIVE MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDI

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 671/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Barot Cooperative Vs. The Ito, बनाम Mandi Multipurpose Society Limited, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 176120 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacat9554D अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2024 आदेश/Order

69A Rs.48 95,755/- Assessed Income Rs.48,95,755/- 4. The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has observed as under: “Condonation of delay In this case, it is found that there is a delay of about 5 months in filing of the Appeal. As per Form 35 filed by the appellant on 27/09/2022, the date of service

BANGA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANDI vs. ITO, MANDI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC erred in passing the order without appreciating the facts, documentary evidences produced

SH. ABHISHEK BANSAL,BARNALA vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

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

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhishek Bansal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner बनाम Prop. M/S Lifeline Multi Income Tax, Specialilty Hospitality, 25 Acre Patiala Extn., Near Fountain Chowk, Barnala, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acgpb5740E अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 5. The appeal has been filed on the following grounds: - 1. That the Ld. PCIT, Patiala has erred in issuing notice u/s 263 and, thereby, holding that the assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer 131-Chd-2023 – Shri Abhishek Bansal, Barnala

RUPINDER KAUR,KHAMANO, FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SIRHIND

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed\n"आर

69A and 6 section 115BBE\nare not at all applicable as all the cash deposits\nare duly explainable and out of legitimate and\ngenuine sources of the assessee.\n7. That the appellant craves leave to add OR\namend the grounds of appeal before the appeal\nis finally heard and disposed off.\n3. At the outset, it has been pointed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

section 69A of the Act in respect of cash deposited during the demonetization period which is represented by sales is required. In view of the facts quoted above, the addition made of Rs.6,89,67,208/- u/s 69A of the Act is hereby deleted and accordingly ground 3 is allowed. 14. We have considered the arguments

RAKESH BANSAL,BARNALA vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

Bench: 22.05.2018. Iii). The Appeals Were Filed As Per Above Notice On 04.02.2019. 2. It Is Submitted That In The Above Said Case, The Appeals Were Prepared On 10Th Of April 2018 & Even The Fee For Filing The Appeals Were Deposited On 16.04.2018, But The Appeals Were Inadvertently Filed In The Office Of The Cit, Pr On 17.04.2018 As Per Necessary Evidence Being Enclosed Herewith In The Form Of Receipt Evidencing The Fact That The Appeals Were Filed On 17.04.2018 In The Office Of The Cit(Dr) Itat.

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1a) That the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained Jewellery amounting to Rs.59,59,890/- U/S 69A of the Act as per Ground No.2, Para 5 of her order

SARU ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATIALA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CEN. CIR., PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of undertaking civil projects for Military engineering services under the name and style of M/s Saru Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and works as a MES contractor. A survey operation under section 133A was conducted

CHUHAR SINGH,CHUHAR SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to the above condition

Bench: Cit(A). 3. That Learned Cit(A)(Nfac) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Providing Any Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard As No Notice Was Received On Email-Id Provided In Form 35 The Appeal Form Before Cita. 4. That Learned Cit(A)(Nfac) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Additions Of Rs. 2,43,60,035/- U/S 69A On Account Of Unaccounted Cash Credit.

section 69A and added to the income of the assessee. 4. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), as recorded in the impugned order , observed that there was a delay of 54 days in filing the appeal and that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation

RAJ KUMAR,MANALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KULLU

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

Bench: Us In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056199571(1) Dt. 18/09/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. Factual Matrix 2. The Ld. Ao Vide Order No. Itba/Ast/S/144/2019-20/1022831422(1) Dt. 21/12/2019 Has Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 35,38,840/- Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Aforesaid Assessment Order Dt. 2112/2019 Had Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who By “Impugned Order” Has Dismissed The Same Exparte. 4. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The “Impugned Order” Has Preferred Present Second Appeal Before Us & In Form No. 36 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax, 1961. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) further gravely erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,38,540/- by invoking provisions of Section 44AD and supply a rate of 8 per cent on total receipt of Rs. 67,31,750/-. Record of Hearing 5. The physical hearing before us took place

HEMANT BEHL,SOLAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), However The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed On Account Of Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Without Considering The Merits Of The Case. Against The Said Order Of The Ld Cit(A), The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

Section 69A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of delay in filing of the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Against the said order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before

HARJINDER SINGH, PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD, SUNAM, PUNJAB

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

delay of ninety-seven days is condoned. 12.1 On the merits of the appeal, we note that the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 was completed ex parte and the appellate order under section 250 has also been passed ex parte within a narrow window. The assessee disputes the validity of the service at every stage and seeks

HARJINDER SINGH, PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD, SUNAM, PUNJAB

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

delay of ninety-seven days is condoned. 12.1 On the merits of the appeal, we note that the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 was completed ex parte and the appellate order under section 250 has also been passed ex parte within a narrow window. The assessee disputes the validity of the service at every stage and seeks

HARJINDER SINGH, PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD, SUNAM, PUNJAB

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

delay of ninety-seven days is condoned. 12.1 On the merits of the appeal, we note that the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 was completed ex parte and the appellate order under section 250 has also been passed ex parte within a narrow window. The assessee disputes the validity of the service at every stage and seeks