ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

natural justice; estimation of commission is reasonable; and section 115BBE applies. The additions of Rs. 28,30,02,558/- under section 68

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

natural justice; estimation of commission is reasonable; and section 115BBE applies. The additions of Rs. 28,30,02,558/- under section 68

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

natural justice is mistress and not the master of justice and it is used to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice. The A.O. was of the view that the cross examination is required to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

natural justice is mistress and not the master of justice and it is used to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice. The A.O. was of the view that the cross examination is required to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

natural justice is mistress and not the master of justice and it is used to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice. The A.O. was of the view that the cross examination is required to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

natural justice is mistress and not the master of justice and it is used to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice. The A.O. was of the view that the cross examination is required to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

natural justice is mistress and not the master of justice and it is used to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice. The A.O. was of the view that the cross examination is required to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

natural justice is mistress and not the master of justice and it is used to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice. The A.O. was of the view that the cross examination is required to support the cause of justice and can never be used to defeat the cause of justice

AMRIK SINGH BHULLAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

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

section 154(8) but the order was passed on 09-11-2018 i.e. after expiry of 6 months.” 2. By the remaining grounds, the assessee assails the issue on merits. 3. At the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee. None was present in support thereof. However, considering the record, the ld. Sr.DR addressing

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

68 burden, coupled with\ntell-tale features of the trades. Second, the AO issued multiple detailed\nquestionnaires under section 142(1) and afforded hearings; the appellant had\nfull opportunity to file rebuttal material, seek cross-examination with reasons,\nand demonstrate genuineness through independent evidence She did not.\nEven assuming some deficiency in confrontation, appellate proceedings have\nprovided a complete opportunity

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 132(4) of the Act, by Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah and Shri R.K. Kedia, were supported by seizure of a large number of incriminating documents, during the course of search proceedings carried out in their cases, including cash books reflecting flow of ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 6 unaccounted cash from such beneficiaries, including the appellant

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 132(4) of the Act, by Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah and Shri R.K. Kedia, were supported by seizure of a large number of incriminating documents, during the course of search proceedings carried out in their cases, including cash books reflecting flow of ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 6 unaccounted cash from such beneficiaries, including the appellant

KAMLESH MAHAJAN,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Us Is Filled In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, As & By Way Of Second Appeal. Impugned Order Is Of First Appellate Proceedings Under The Act. Brief Factual Matrix The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Is Under Section 143(3) Which Is Dated 23/12/2019 Whereby In Returne Income Of Rs. 7,02,490/- An Addition Of Rs. 22,46,795/- Is Made. The Assessed Income Determined Is Of Rs. 29,49,285/-. The Additions Are Made By Virtue Of Para 12 Of The Assessment Order Which Read As Under: “12. The Assessee Deposited Huge Cash In Bank Accounts During Demonetization Period (9Th November, 2016 To 30Th December, 2016), But The Sources Were Neither Explained Nor Such Money Offered For Taxation, The Onus Is On The Assessee To Prove That The Cash Deposits Made Did Not Bear The Character

natural justice. 2. Section 68: Unexplained Money - That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by confirming an addition

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)

justice; that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made by Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act alleging that the nature and source of cash of Rs. 87,95,000/- deposited in bank accounts during the demonetization period starting from 08th November 2016 till 31st December 2016 has remained unexplained and thereby taxing the same

M/S FORTUNE METALIKS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

natural justice on both counts and the impugned order was liable to be quashed." The copy of the judgment is placed in the paper book-ll at pages 3 to 6. 4. The same is the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Tulsi Tracom Private Limited vs. CIT reported

JATIN GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits. Further any investment made out of explained credits from regular bank account cannot be added under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore the learned Assessing Officer without application of his own mind and in haste of adherence to the instructions of third party by throwing all laws

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)

nature and source of the cash deposits. The appellant’s failure to produce credible and corroborative material evidence, her reliance on vague and general statements, and the unjustified attempt to claim full ownership over income derived from a jointly held asset collectively fall short of satisfying the statutory requirements under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The evidentiary material

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

justice by relying on statements of various persons and data without affording the Appellant any opportunity to cross examine such persons, thus, making the assessment bad in law. That the order dated 10.05,2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi is against law andfuels on thefile in as much

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

justice by relying on statements of various persons and data without affording the Appellant any opportunity to cross examine such persons, thus, making the assessment bad in law. That the order dated 10.05,2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi is against law andfuels on thefile in as much