SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

unexplained sources. The Ld. PCIT therefore has established both erroneous nature of impugned order of Ld. AO and so also that it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in our considered view. 13.1 We hold that Ld. PCIT in the impugned order is not interfering with the discretion of Ld. AO in making the assessment order. He is terming

SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

unexplained sources. The Ld. PCIT therefore has established both erroneous nature of impugned order of Ld. AO and so also that it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in our considered view. 13.1 We hold that Ld. PCIT in the impugned order is not interfering with the discretion of Ld. AO in making the assessment order. He is terming

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 to Rs. 42,57,319 were made in his Indian bank account during the relevant year. 2.1 The Assessing Officer reopened the case u/s 147 and made an addition of Rs. 42,57,319/-—comprising (i) cash deposits

RAVI MEHRA, 1121, SECTOR 10, PANCHKULA 134109, HARYANA,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

unexplained. The ld. AR submitted that after receiving notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income and requested to provide the copy of reasons recorded for reopening of the case, copy of approval obtained and copy of any statement/material relied upon. In response to the same, the assessee was provided with copy of approval sought u/s

RAM SINGH,DISTRICT KAITHAL, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAITHAL, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AMBALA ROAD, KAITHAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Of.

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 27.12.2019 assessing the income at Rs. 1,60,79,020/- after making an addition of Rs. 1,58,84,450 /- u/s 69 for unexplained cash deposits. 4. The assessee has challenged the reopening on the ground that the AO acted mechanically and did not form an independent belief. The Ld. Counsel

SHRI MUKESH KUMAR,JAGADHARI vs. ITO-WARD-2, YAMUNA NAGAR

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.40/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 Sh. Mukesh Kumar, The Ito, बनाम C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates, Ward-2, 179, Bank Road, Yamunanagar Ambala Cantt. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No. Agdpk9371P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment for the aforesaid assessment years on substantive basis against the opening capital balance of Rs.80,55,462/-, the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of the said amount in the assessment year under consideration. The Ld. counsel further argued that as per the settled law the amount of opening balance of capital carried forward from earlier years

SHRI SAPINDER SINGH,RAJPURA vs. ITO- WARD, RAJPURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 86/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sh Sapinder Singh, The Ito, बनाम Villagae Uksi, Ward Rajpura, District Patiala District Patiala

unexplained credit and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 26,57,860/- besides the agricultural income of Rs. 02,66,800/-. In the first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order and confirmed the addition made by AO. The assessee is in appeal against the said findings of the ld. CIT(A). 3. The assessee

MOHINDER SINGH,ROPAR,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD-2(2), PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 20,64,000/- in his bank account during the demonetization period. 3.1 The Assessing Officer observed that out of the said deposits, an amount of Rs. 12,99,000/- represented deposits in old currency on three dates

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. M/S JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

147 would defeat the very purpose of the amendment and open the floodgates to arbitrary assessments. 26. The relevant extract Memorandum explaining the finance bill is reproduced as under:- ‘(ii) Assessments or reassessments or in re-computation in cases where search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under 132A, after 31st March 2021, shall be under

JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

147 would defeat the very purpose of the amendment and open the floodgates to arbitrary assessments. 26. The relevant extract Memorandum explaining the finance bill is reproduced as under:- ‘(ii) Assessments or reassessments or in re-computation in cases where search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under 132A, after 31st March 2021, shall be under

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN SITU) CIRCLE-I, , LUDHIANA vs. KAPIL THAPAR, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and Cross

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

money received over and above the sale value of property, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case that there was sufficient incriminating maerial in the form of loose papers found during the search proceedings to establish that the assessee has received cash over and above the value as per the sale deed. 2. Whether on the facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATIALA vs. GULMOHAR ASSOCIATES, PATIALA

u/s 147 of the Act" 4. The assessee, a Partnership Firm set up to carry on the business of real estate activities such as resale of properties, acting as builder and colonizers had not carried out any business during the year under appeal. For the Assessment Year under appeal the Assessee had not originally filed its return of income

SADHU RAM GUPTA,DHURI, SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, MALERKOTLA, PUNJAB

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 873 & 874/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2017-18 & 2020-21 Shri Sadhu Ram Gupta, The Ito, House No. 263, W.No. 15B, Vs Ward-1, Sangrur, Tehsil Mohalla Dhuri, Malerkotla. Sangrur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Addpg0223H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 & 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

unexplained investment is sustained.” 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, while impugning the orders of CIT (Appeals) submitted that as far as assessment year 2017-18 is concerned, the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 read with Section 143(3)/144B is not sustainable because AO is using seized material discovered at the premises of the searched person against

SADHU RAM GUPTA,DHURI, SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, MALERKOTLA, PUNJAB

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 873 & 874/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2017-18 & 2020-21 Shri Sadhu Ram Gupta, The Ito, House No. 263, W.No. 15B, Vs Ward-1, Sangrur, Tehsil Mohalla Dhuri, Malerkotla. Sangrur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Addpg0223H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 & 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

unexplained investment is sustained.” 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, while impugning the orders of CIT (Appeals) submitted that as far as assessment year 2017-18 is concerned, the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 read with Section 143(3)/144B is not sustainable because AO is using seized material discovered at the premises of the searched person against

INCOME TAX OFFICE, LUDHIANA vs. SRI GURU HARGOBIND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 as the assessee had failed to furnish any explanation on this issue during the course of assessment proceedings. 5) That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the addition of Rs. 61,606/- made by the AO being undisclosed interest income

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)

reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the IT Act. However, as noted above, all contentions of all parties are kept open in this context." 18. It has been contended that the Assessing Officer has wrongly made addition u/s 153A(l)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 15 on the direction

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)

reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the IT Act. However, as noted above, all contentions of all parties are kept open in this context." 18. It has been contended that the Assessing Officer has wrongly made addition u/s 153A(l)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 15 on the direction

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: -

147 was void-ab-initio and more-so when the reasons recorded were legally unsustainable and di not establish any valid ‘reason to believe; of escapement of income and also when no addition was made on issue on which reasons were recorded. 1.3 The Ld. CIT-DR advanced arguments supporting the addition made in the assessment order