MALKIAT AGRO INDUSTRIES 01, CANTT ROAD, NABHA 147201, PUNJAB,PUNJAB vs. LOVISH SHELLEY THE DCIT CIRCLE MANDIGOBIND GARH JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER NABHA, PUNJAB

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

cash deposits in assessee's bank account was less than the amount mentioned in the reopening notice and it was held that the reasons recorded by the AO were not emerging from the record available with him and the AO having recorded the reasons which were not found to be valid and, therefore, the reassessment

SH. RAM PAL GILL,PATIALA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptash. Ram Pal Gill Vs. Dy. Director Of Income Tax C/O Rakesh Cajla, Advocate (International Taxation) Sco-7, Opp. British Co-Ed Chandigarh School, Lower Mall Patiala

cash was found deposited in the bank account of the assessee could not form the basis of formation of belief of escapement of income unless the reasons made out a case that the assessee was engaged in some business, the income from which had not been returned. The Ld. counsel for assessee stated that re-assessment proceedings in the present

MADAN LAL,FATEHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, FATEHABAD

In the result, Assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 190/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Madan Lal, The Ito, Ganaga Pipe Ind, बनाम Ward-1, G.T.Road, Fatehabad Vs. Village Dhangar, Fatehbad 125050 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acapl2915R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.12.2023 Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The A.Y. 2017- 18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: -

deposited cash of Rs. 190-Chd-2024 Madan Lal, Fatehabad 4 16,82,000/- during 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 in his bank account No. 20638854926 maintained with Allahabad Bank. 4. Subsequently, the Ld. Assessing Officer initiated reassessment

PARVEEN KUMAR MITTAL,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Us Raising The Following Grounds:

cash deposits which he had failed to explain before the AO, NMS, was sufficient to form belief of escapement of income. A.Y. 2011-12 Page 8 of 22 9. To this the Ld.Counsel for the assessee responded by stating that the assessee was not required to file any explanation to the AO, NMS. Ld.Counsel for the assessee explained that

GURDISH KAUR KHULAR,JALANDHAR vs. ACIT( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings was not valid.” 9.5 In the present case also the A.O. in the reasons recorded clearly stated that on the basis of information that the assessee deposited cash

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR,KAITHAL vs. ITO-WARD-2, KAITHAL

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

reassessment u/s 147/148 that an amount of Rs. 28,52,200/-. 2. Because the action for upholding the addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- as concealed income u/s 69 is under challenge on facts & law inspite of the statement of the Branch Manager and the representation to the Chairman of Punjab National Bank not finding any consideration in the conclusions

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

deposited in cash without any justification. 12. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 13. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs. 2,97,834/- without any justification. 14. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

deposited in cash without any justification. 12. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 13. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs. 2,97,834/- without any justification. 14. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance

SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH,JAGADHRI, YAMUNANGAR vs. DCIT(E) (CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

cash deposit amounting to Rs. 34,50,350/- with Punjab National Bank, VPO-Jagadholi, Yamuna Nagar remained unexplained and the same was brought to tax invoking provision of Section 68 of the Act and as against the returned income of NIL, the reassessed

JAMYANG KHYENTSE YESHI,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ACIT, DCIT, C.R. BUILDING, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A), After Calling For A Remand Report Under Rule 46A, Recorded The Following Findings (Para 5.1 To 5.5 Of The Appellate Order):

reassessment proceedings on the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer that cash deposits and credit-card payments aggregating

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1),, CHANDIGARH vs. HARI KRISHAN GUPTA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

deposited Rs.1,11,67,000/- in cash in his bank account during the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016), reassessment proceedings

VIPAN KUMAR THAMMAN,DERABASSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5),CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

cash deposit of Rs.183.05 Lacs in its Bank Account No.55029085429 held with SBOP, Dera Bassi, the details of which were not furnished by the assessee at the time of regular assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the case was reopened and a notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 27-01-2016. In the reassessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1 MEHSANA, MEHSANA vs. MANIBHADRA TRACTORS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2017-18

cash deposits, without appreciating that the assessee had failed to file the return of income within the prescribed time and had not discharged the primary onus cast upon it during the reassessment

RAVINDER SINGH, KHANNA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings that part of the impugned cash deposits partly belonged to the assessee whereas part of the cash deposits

SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,KHARAR, RUPNAGAR vs. DCIT WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH JAO ITO 6(1) MOHALI, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

cash in lieu of unsecured loans, no such addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion. One the assessee has filed all the details, the burden of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor stood discharged by the assessee. The bench also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1), MOHALI vs. SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KHRAR PUNJAB

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

cash in lieu of unsecured loans, no such addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion. One the assessee has filed all the details, the burden of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor stood discharged by the assessee. The bench also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT

SH. RAM LAL,ROPAR vs. PR. C.I.T. -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

cash so found deposited in the bank account and the assessee in turn has filed his explanation and necessary documentation in support thereof. Thereafter, the AO in the reassessment

VANEET GUPTA, S.O. SH. CHATTUR BHUJ GUPTA, #214, SECTOR-06,PANCHKULA vs. PCIT PANCHKULA JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER ITO WARD 5, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 560/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vaneet Gupta, Vs. The Ito, बनाम S.O. Shri Chattur Bhuj Ward 5, Gupta, Panchkula # 214, Sector 6, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aphpg0692N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid 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 : 04.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

cash deposits of Rs 43,52,100/- in Saving Bank Account with 1CICI Bank have not been examined properly by the Assessing Officer and the said audit objection. July 2019 The said audit objection was confronted to the assessee and the assessee replied in July 2019, alongwith relevant documents, which had been submitted during assessment proceedings. 560-Chd-2024 – Vaneet