SAHIL SINGLA,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

House International (P.) Ltd. reported in, 98 taxmann.com 47 has rightly been placed. Therein, it has been held that- “Once genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of investors are established, no addition culd be made as cash credit”. 30. M/s TJR Properties Pvt. Ltd. 30.1 The appellant had received unsecured loans from M/s TJR Properties Private Limited during the year through banking

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

unexplained cash deposit. Our humble submissions in this case is that the AO passed the order against that assessee who does not own any moveable and immovable property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

unexplained cash deposit. Our humble submissions in this case is that the AO passed the order against that assessee who does not own any moveable and immovable property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

unexplained cash deposit. Our humble submissions in this case is that the AO passed the order against that assessee who does not own any moveable and immovable property in her name. It is a fact on record that the assessee is an illiterate housewife and has no source of income other than small interest on saving bank account under consideration

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. SARAF THE JEWELLERS, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1230/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1592/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

House. The same was in the shape of a slip depicting sales price of a showroomDSS-109 as 2.15 Crores. It further depicted account of cash receipts of “135” having been received in connection with sale of DSS-109. The image, as per interpretation ofLd. AO, reflected cash received in 4 installments on different dates totalling to Rs.135 Lacs

SARAF THE JEWELLERS, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CEN-2 CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1230/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1592/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

House. The same was in the shape of a slip depicting sales price of a showroomDSS-109 as 2.15 Crores. It further depicted account of cash receipts of “135” having been received in connection with sale of DSS-109. The image, as per interpretation ofLd. AO, reflected cash received in 4 installments on different dates totalling to Rs.135 Lacs

M/S PARDEEP ISPAT(P) LTD.,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

PRIYANKA,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

SH. PARSHOTAM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

PRIYA GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

SHRI. TARSEM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

SHRI RAJEEV GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported

KALANEEDHI JEWELLERS LLP,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The 2nd addition relates to the addition of Rs.7,96,905/- on account of difference in the cost of construction and on proportionate addition made on account of investment in the show room over and above the amount which has been debited in the books of accounts

SSMT. CHARU AGGARWAL,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The 2nd addition relates to the addition of Rs.7,96,905/- on account of difference in the cost of construction and on proportionate addition made on account of investment in the show room over and above the amount which has been debited in the books of accounts

SH. GULSHAN KUMAR PROP. G.K. RESORTS,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavsh. Gulshan Kumar बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. G. K. Resorts House No. 3, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Agar Nagar Extension, Ferospur Ludhiana Road, Ludhiana 1410212, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaqpk1200Q

house property”, “income from business/profession” and “income from other sources”. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS on account of large cash deposits made during the demonetization period for complete scrutiny, thereafter notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for the information/documentation. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was also issued

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. KONARK RAJHANS ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 805/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit M/S Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited Panchkula Circle बनाम/ Vs. Nh 73, Village Kot Extension-Ii, Sector 14, Panchkula. Panchkula. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeck-2405-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2018. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By Deletion Of Twin Quantum Additions Of Rs.40.85 Lacs & Rs.707.75 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao In The Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: -

housing projectwhich never took off. 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has not erredtoallowtheappealoftheassesseeanddeletetheadditionof Rs. 1,79,75,000/- made u/s 68of the Act as the assessee clearly failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the lenders. 9. ItisprayedthattheorderoftheId.CIT(A)beset-asideandthatoftheA.O.berestored. 1.2 The assessee has filed petition

SH. NARESH CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

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

houses, registration for which had been done and the last payments made by these persons of Rs.5,00,000/- each duly reconciled with the date of registration of sale deeds. It was submitted that as the advance sale consideration has illegally been treated as unexplained cash credit, the same may kindly be deleted as profit has been booked and offered

SH. NARESH CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

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

houses, registration for which had been done and the last payments made by these persons of Rs.5,00,000/- each duly reconciled with the date of registration of sale deeds. It was submitted that as the advance sale consideration has illegally been treated as unexplained cash credit, the same may kindly be deleted as profit has been booked and offered