ANITA RANI W/O SH. RAJENDER SINGH,CHEEKA GUHLA, KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, KAITHAL

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

reassessment ex parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 147, making an addition of Rs.17,64,000/- treating it as unexplained investment u/s 69 3 4. The assessee thereafter filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 250 days, supported by an application explaining that the delay was solely due to the negligence/illness of the erstwhile Chartered Accountant, which

SH. JAGTAR SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

reassessment proceedings. The primary reason to believe that income had escaped assessment fails and such assessment cannot be treated as a valid order in the eye of law and is liable to be declared as void-ab-initio. The collateral proceedings u/s 263 are thus not sustainable. 8. BECAUSE the invalid and illegal order cannot be subject matter of proceedings

SHRI JAGPAL SINGH,FATEHBAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

reassessment proceedings. The primary reason to believe that income had escaped assessment fails and such assessment cannot be treated as a valid order in the eye of law and is liable to be declared as void-ab-initio. The collateral proceedings u/s 263 are thus not sustainable. 8. BECAUSE the invalid and illegal order cannot be subject matter of proceedings

MOHIT KAPOOR LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICR WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment u/s 147, the service of notice, and the addition of Rs.10,77,850/- u/s 69A on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits. 3. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the above appeal is barred by limitation by 50 days. 4. After considering the condonation application filed by the assessee in the present appeal, we condone

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

condone the delay in filing Cross\nObjection because there was no malafide intention. The\nassessee has not adopted a delaying strategy to litigate with\nthe Revenue.\n10.1 Apart from above, we are of the view that since legal\nissues are being raised by the assessee in its Cross\nObjections, therefore, Rule 27 of ITAT Rules empowers it as a\nrespondent

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

condone the delay in filing Cross\nObjection because there was no malafide intention. The\nassessee has not adopted a delaying strategy to litigate with\nthe Revenue.\n10.1 Apart from above, we are of the view that since legal\nissues are being raised by the assessee in its Cross\nObjections, therefore, Rule 27 of ITAT Rules empowers it as a\nrespondent

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

condone the delay in filing Cross\nObjection because there was no malafide intention. The\nassessee has not adopted a delaying strategy to litigate with\nthe Revenue.\n10.1 Apart from above, we are of the view that since legal\nissues are being raised by the assessee in its Cross\nObjections, therefore, Rule 27 of ITAT Rules empowers it as a\nrespondent

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

condone the delay in filing Cross\nObjection because there was no malafide intention. The\nassessee has not adopted a delaying strategy to litigate with\nthe Revenue.\n10.1 Apart from above, we are of the view that since legal\nissues are being raised by the assessee in its Cross\nObjections, therefore, Rule 27 of ITAT Rules empowers it as a\nrespondent

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

delay in filing the cross- objection is condoned and the same is hereby admitted for necessary adjudication. 26. Now, coming to the various grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in its cross-objection so filed, it is noted that the assessee has effectively challenged the action of the AO in levying interest amounting

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.:

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 5. Grounds of appeal taken by the Assessee are as under:- 1. That the Ld. PCIT, Panchkula has erred in setting aside the order, as passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s section 147 of the income tax, dated 24.10.2018 and holding the same as erroneous

SH. SARANJIT SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeals on merits. Since the facts and issue involved in the captioned appeals are 4. identical and are relating to same search action, therefore, these captioned appeals were heard together and are disposed of with this 381-382 & 383-384-Chd-2022 Shamsher Singh & Saranjit Singh, Patiala 3 common order. First

SH. SHAMSHER SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeals on merits. Since the facts and issue involved in the captioned appeals are 4. identical and are relating to same search action, therefore, these captioned appeals were heard together and are disposed of with this 381-382 & 383-384-Chd-2022 Shamsher Singh & Saranjit Singh, Patiala 3 common order. First

SH. SHAMSHER SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeals on merits. Since the facts and issue involved in the captioned appeals are 4. identical and are relating to same search action, therefore, these captioned appeals were heard together and are disposed of with this 381-382 & 383-384-Chd-2022 Shamsher Singh & Saranjit Singh, Patiala 3 common order. First

SH. SARANJIT SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeals on merits. Since the facts and issue involved in the captioned appeals are 4. identical and are relating to same search action, therefore, these captioned appeals were heard together and are disposed of with this 381-382 & 383-384-Chd-2022 Shamsher Singh & Saranjit Singh, Patiala 3 common order. First

SH. JAI PRAKASH,MORINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), ROPAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, with the following directions:

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

delay of 468 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits in exercise of powers under section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in trading of cattle and animal feed under the proprietorship concern M/s Jagdambey Feed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , LUDHIANA vs. DEEPANKAR JAIN, LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed and Cross

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

condoned: Memo of appeal of the department received 27.03.2025 by the assessee Due date of filing Cross Objections 26.04.2025 Cross Objections filed on 19.06.2025 Delay 53 days 6. We have gone through the ground of Cross Objections and since the legal issue has been raised about the completion of search assessment u/s 143(3) and all the facts are borne

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.

condoning the delay of 21 days in filing of appeal before CIT(A). 3. That learned CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in law and 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

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even when

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even when