SWARN GANGA JEWELLERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 11/09/2018. The assessment was finalised vide order dt. 23/12/2019 whereby addition of Rs. 95,70,882/- was made u/s 68 r.w..s 115BBE of the Act. 3. During the period commencing from 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016 (demonetisation period) the assessee had deposited sum of Rs. 1,18,88,500/- in their bank

SH. ABHISHEK BANSAL,BARNALA vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhishek Bansal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner बनाम Prop. M/S Lifeline Multi Income Tax, Specialilty Hospitality, 25 Acre Patiala Extn., Near Fountain Chowk, Barnala, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acgpb5740E अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

demonetization. 4. That the Ld. PCIT has erred in not following the judgment of Jurisdictional Bench of the ITAT in the case of Surya Hatchery Vs PCIT (2023) 102 ITR (Trib.) 186 Chd and Surinder Kumar & Others reported in (2023) 102 ITR (Trib.) 247 and others, in which, on similar facts and circumstances, the order u/s 263 as passed

SH. SURENDER KUMAR,KAITHAL vs. PR. C.I.T., ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

68 to 69D of the Income Tax Act. He, therefore, held that the order passed by the AO u/s 143 of the Act was erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He, accordingly, set aside the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) with direction to pass an order afresh in accordance with

SH. SUNIL KUMAR,SIRSA vs. PR. C.I.T., ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

68 to 69D of the Income Tax Act. He, therefore, held that the order passed by the AO u/s 143 of the Act was erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He, accordingly, set aside the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) with direction to pass an order afresh in accordance with

BHAWNA PURI,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, MANDI, MANDI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms

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

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period. 2. In the present

RACHIT AGGARWAL (PROP.) ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & CO.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD II(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

demonetized currency in November 2016 was in accordance with the trend of cash sales/ realizations from trade debtors in view of the festive ITA -858/CHD/2023 & SA-2/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 33 and marriage seasons in North India in the months of October and November 2016. Therefore, the addition of the balance of Rs. 52.50 lakh under section 68

INCOME TAX OFICER, BC BAZAR vs. THE KESRI UNION FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, AMBALA

In the result appeal of Department / Revenue is dismissed

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

demonetization period and has deposited it in its bank account hence addition of Rs. 1,35,30,500/- is being made as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, penalty proceedings under section

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.

section 68 taxable u/s 115BBE.” 6.1 The Ld. DR contended that these findings were cogent and based on judicial precedent, and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the “human probability” principle and deleting a well-founded addition. 7. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported the well-reasoned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and read

BHANU PRATAP JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA

In the result the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 155/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bhanu Pratap Jain, Proprietor, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Ward Vii(1), M/S Pehal International, Ludhiana B-31, Phase V, Focal Point, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Agzpjj0090L अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024

Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of dealing in yarn. The Assessee was a sole proprietor of M/s Pehal International and was a Partner in M/s Srishti Wool Combers. Return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 31.10.2017 declaring income

THE KHOJKIPUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,AMBALA vs. ITO, WARD-5, AMBALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 865/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Khojkipur Primary Agriculture Vs. The Ito, Cooperataive Society Ltd. Ward-5, Vpo Khojkipur, Ambala District Ambala, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aadat5290K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

demonetization period. He has further submitted that the provisions of section 68 of the Act were not applicable in this

SANDEEP KUMAR SANSERWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO WARD-4, YAMUNAGAR

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

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

section 68 of the Act, thereby charging tax on the same u/s. 115 BBE of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) and submitted copy of his ITR for AY 2017-18, copies of bank account of Punjab & Sindh Bank, copy of VAT return filed, certificate from J K Trust

JEEWAN NATH JAGAN NATH,VPO KUNIHAR, HATKOT vs. DCIT ACIT, CIRCLE PARWANOO

Appeal is allowed

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

demonetization. 3 8. Based on detailed working, it was concluded, by the Assessing Officer that an amount of Rs. 1,40,05,602/- (comprising Rs. 89,46,883/- for October 2016 and Rs. 50,58,719/- for 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016) represented inflated cash receipts. This amount was added under Section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA vs. ANUP BANSAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 671/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Sh. Anoop Bansal, Ward-1(5), बनाम Motia Marvel, Ludhiana Barewal Road, Backside, Vs. Gurudev Hospital, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Ahgpb5674C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Geetinder Mann, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

68 of the IT. Act, 1961 and taxed as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act as the source of unexplained cash credit during the demonetization

DEEPIKA GARG, E-392, PHASE-VI, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), LUDHIANA, JAO, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM Deepika Garg E-392, Phase-VI Focal Point, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACAPG4693H अपीलार्थी/Appellant आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 96/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 बनाम The ITO Ward-1(5), Ludhiana प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/07/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख / D

68, read with section 69A, of the Income -tax Act, 1961- Cash credit (Bank deposits)- Assessment year 2017-18- During year, assessee receive d cash deposits of certain amount it its housing loan account by respective HUFs of assessee and his two brothers-Assessing Officer noted that it was unexplained cash in demonetized

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. TIRUPATI BALAJI EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

68 and taxed as per section 115 BBE and penalty u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 initiated. (Addition of Rs. 5,07,54,538/-)” Page 7 of 15 ITA No.-618/CHANDI/2023 Tirupati Balaji Exim Pvt. Ltd. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical 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 : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

section 69A of the Act in respect of cash deposited during the demonetization period which is represented by sales is required. In view of the facts quoted above, the addition made of Rs.6,89,67,208/- u/s 69A of the Act is hereby deleted and accordingly ground 3 is allowed. 5.10. In ground 4, the appellant tends to challenge

GURU NANAK STEEL TRADERS,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

demonetization may not be treated as unexplained cash deposit and added to the income under Section 68 of the Act. In response

VERMA JEWELLERS,SOLAN vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand

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

section 68 of the Act by way of unexplained cash deposit made in the bank account of the assessee during demonetization