GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

unexplained money under Section 69B of the Act. Besides that, an addition of Rs. 3,59,260/- was also made on account of license fee, penalty and interest debited in the P&L Account for the reason that assessee has failed to substantiate the same and penalty proceedings were separately initiated. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD6(3), LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A,O, ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

unexplained money under Section 69B of the Act. Besides that, an addition of Rs. 3,59,260/- was also made on account of license fee, penalty and interest debited in the P&L Account for the reason that assessee has failed to substantiate the same and penalty proceedings were separately initiated. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA,ITO WARD 6(3), LUDHIANA,CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

unexplained money under Section 69B of the Act. Besides that, an addition of Rs. 3,59,260/- was also made on account of license fee, penalty and interest debited in the P&L Account for the reason that assessee has failed to substantiate the same and penalty proceedings were separately initiated. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

unexplained money under Section 69B of the Act. Besides that, an addition of Rs. 3,59,260/- was also made on account of license fee, penalty and interest debited in the P&L Account for the reason that assessee has failed to substantiate the same and penalty proceedings were separately initiated. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter

SUKHDEV SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1142/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sukhdev Singh, The Ito, Village-Dheerpur, Ward No. 3, Po-Khanpur Koliyan, Vs Kurukshetra. Tehsil-Thanesar, Kurukshetra. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Etgps8505H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 6. The solitary substantial grievance on merit is that ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.55,55,000/-. At the time of hearing, we have passed the following interim order : “The Assessee

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:

unexplained money u/s 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. KAPIL ROMANA, BATHINDA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

delay in filing the cross objections for Asstt. Year 2017-17 & 2018-19 by 236 days are condoned. 14. On the merits of the case, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and contended that the addition has been made on the basis of loose documents recovered from the residence of assessee and, thus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , LUDHIANA vs. KAPIL ROMANA , BATHINDA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

delay in filing the cross objections for Asstt. Year 2017-17 & 2018-19 by 236 days are condoned. 14. On the merits of the case, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and contended that the addition has been made on the basis of loose documents recovered from the residence of assessee and, thus

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

condonation of delay.\n3.\nIt has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name

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

condonation of delay.\n3. It has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name

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

condonation of delay.\n3.\nIt has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name

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

condonation of delay.\n3. It has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name

SH. AMARJIT SINGH VPO AMARGARH, MALERKOTLA, SANGRUR,PUNJAB vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

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

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 824/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Amarjit Singh, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Central Circle 2, Vpo Amargarh, Ludhiana Malerkotla, Sangrur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aywps7463E अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Jcit Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

money u/s 69A and addition amounting to Rs.2677049 on account of unexplained credits u/s 68. 824-Chd-2023 – Shri Amarjit Singh, Malerkotla 2 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee has duly substantiated that the seized parcel was actually the gold amounting to Rs. 13,05,050, sent by the assessee to Sh. Manoj

SHRI TEK CHAND,KARNAL vs. ITO-WARD-2, KAITHAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: 02-04-2020. That The Appellant Prepared Appeal & Deposited Appeal Fee On 18-03-2020 As Per Challan Of Appeal Fee Attached With Appeal Form.

delay of 35 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal : 1. The Appellant Sh. Tek Chand aged 70 year old is a Farmer and He and his Brother Sh. Ram Diya sold their Agri land of Rs. 60,22,000 on dated

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

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

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 4.1 are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 7. Ground No.1 is general and needs no adjudication. 8. Apropos Ground Nos.2 to 2.7, the facts are that the ld. PCIT issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2019 to the assessee

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

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

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 4.1 are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 7. Ground No.1 is general and needs no adjudication. 8. Apropos Ground Nos.2 to 2.7, the facts are that the ld. PCIT issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2019 to the assessee

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

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

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 4.1 are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 7. Ground No.1 is general and needs no adjudication. 8. Apropos Ground Nos.2 to 2.7, the facts are that the ld. PCIT issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2019 to the assessee

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.

unexplained money under 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

BHUPINDER SINGH SON OF SH. GURMUKH SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH-1, C.R BUILDING HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH, PUNJAB

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

Delay condoned. Appeal taken up for hearing. The Facts 4. The assessee is an individual who is an agriculturist and it is the only source of income of the assessee and agricultural income being exempt from tax, he never filed his ITR. 5. The assessee owns approximately 15 acres of land which is used by him for the agricultural operations