INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

133A on 22/09/2017. During the course of survey, the assessee declared additional income of Rs. 2,61,69,869/- on account of discrepancy in stock inventory for the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to impugned A.Y. 2017-18. Thereafter, assessee filed its return of income on 03/11/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 2,76,14,540/- including the surrendered income

ANUPAM,BARNALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARNALA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

133A of the Act on 26/09/2016. During the survey, the assessee surrendered a total amount of Rs. 95,00,000/- under the heads of unexplained advances and loans of Rs. 61,00,000/-, unexplained cash in hand of Rs. 9,00,000/-, and unexplained investment in hospital renovation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer accepted the returned

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

68 has to be assessed under section 56. In the case before us, source of unexplained cash credits is not known and hence they cannot be linked to any known source/head of income including income from other sources. In order to constitute 'income from 'other sources', the source, namely, the "other sources", has to be identified. Income from unexplained

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

68 to 69D of the Act. Accordingly, excess stock of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- being unaccounted / unexplained be taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Account.The A.O. 4. Further during the survey u/s 133A

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

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

68 whereas the Assessing Officer assessed these income under section 69 which concludes that these both officers are not definite about applicability of specific provision of law. 5. That the surrendered amount has wrongly assessed as "deemed income" whereas appellant has shown these income as "business income" in books & in return of income as the appellant has no other

M/S JASHAN FINLEASE LTD.,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 to 69D of the Act. The above reasoning of the survey party is not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any justification on the part of the ld. PCIT in invoking the Revisionary jurisdiction in this case.” 17. Therefore, the foundational requirement before invoking the deeming provisions

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequently denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38). 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further gravely erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,76,33,254/- on account of alleged commission expenses allegedly paid by the appellant for arranging

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequently denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38). 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further gravely erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,76,33,254/- on account of alleged commission expenses allegedly paid by the appellant for arranging

SHRI HARISH SHARMA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO , LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

133A was carried out on 14.09.2016 at the business premises of the assessee and M/s Ambika Medicos. During the course of survey proceedings, a notebook pertaining to M/s Sharma Overseas Services was found, in which entries were recorded regarding cash collection of Rs.10 lacs during the period from April, 2016 to August 2016. The assessee contended that

RAV SHARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, C.C., PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 to 69D of the Act. The above reasoning of the survey party is not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any justification on the part of the ld. PCIT in invoking the Revisionary jurisdiction in this case.” 17. Therefore, the foundational requirement before invoking the deeming provisions

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.

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 and 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

SH. LACHHMAN DASS BANSAL,BARNALA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

133A of the act. Once the assessee has retracted from the statement then, it was on the Assessing Officer to establish beyond any doubt the issues on which the addition has been made. From the above facts, it is very much clear that retraction was made by filing a letter to the Ld. AO & copy of the same was sent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

133A of the Act in the case of Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta and Shri Sandeep Gupta was conducted at their business premises on 30.11.2018. During the course of survey proceedings, statement of Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta was recorded ‘on oath’ u/s 131(1)(A) of the Act. According to the Revenue, Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta has disclosed in his statement

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.:

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

133A of the Act in the case of\nShri Ashok Kumar Gupta and Shri Sandeep Gupta was\nconducted at their business premises on 30.11.2018. During\nthe course of survey proceedings, statement of Shri Ashok\nKumar Gupta was recorded ‘on oath' u/s 131(1)(A) of the Act.\nAccording to the Revenue, Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta has\ndisclosed in his statement

SARU ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATIALA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CEN. CIR., PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 without providing any opportunity of being heard on the issue because the notice of enhancement as well as the submissions of appellant were based on the provisions of section 69A. 3. That the order of enhancement of income amounting Rs. 5,00,000/- has resulted in double taxation as the appellant has already included the same

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and\nsubsequently denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38).\n2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further gravely\nerred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an\naddition of Rs.1,76,33,254/- on account of alleged commission expenses\nallegedly paid by the appellant for arranging alleged

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

133A of the I.T.Act, 1961 was carried out at the premises of the assessee. Needless to mention here that the assessee would never have disclosed this income voluntarily if the survey operation had not been conducted at his premises, this surrender income of Rs. 93,00,000/- are income of the assessee as income referred in section 69, section