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.

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 account with HDFC Bank. During the course of the proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the source of such huge cash deposit post demonetisation announcement. The Assessee

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

68 & 64 of 2016 dated 20.12.2016 and separate orders dated 9.5.2017 in ITA Nos. 65, 69, 97 & 98 (O&M) of 2016 respectively to decide as to whether the assessee herein before us namely ‘Punjab Infrastructure Development Board’ (herein referred to as ‘ PIDB’) was required to collect tax at source (TCS) as per the provisions of section 206

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

68 & 64 of 2016 dated 20.12.2016 and separate orders dated 9.5.2017 in ITA Nos. 65, 69, 97 & 98 (O&M) of 2016 respectively to decide as to whether the assessee herein before us namely ‘Punjab Infrastructure Development Board’ (herein referred to as ‘ PIDB’) was required to collect tax at source (TCS) as per the provisions of section 206

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

68 & 64 of 2016 dated 20.12.2016 and separate orders dated 9.5.2017 in ITA Nos. 65, 69, 97 & 98 (O&M) of 2016 respectively to decide as to whether the assessee herein before us namely ‘Punjab Infrastructure Development Board’ (herein referred to as ‘ PIDB’) was required to collect tax at source (TCS) as per the provisions of section 206

M/S PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

68 & 64 of 2016 dated 20.12.2016 and separate orders dated 9.5.2017 in ITA Nos. 65, 69, 97 & 98 (O&M) of 2016 respectively to decide as to whether the assessee herein before us namely ‘Punjab Infrastructure Development Board’ (herein referred to as ‘ PIDB’) was required to collect tax at source (TCS) as per the provisions of section 206

M/S PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

68 & 64 of 2016 dated 20.12.2016 and separate orders dated 9.5.2017 in ITA Nos. 65, 69, 97 & 98 (O&M) of 2016 respectively to decide as to whether the assessee herein before us namely ‘Punjab Infrastructure Development Board’ (herein referred to as ‘ PIDB’) was required to collect tax at source (TCS) as per the provisions of section 206

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

68 & 64 of 2016 dated 20.12.2016 and separate orders dated 9.5.2017 in ITA Nos. 65, 69, 97 & 98 (O&M) of 2016 respectively to decide as to whether the assessee herein before us namely ‘Punjab Infrastructure Development Board’ (herein referred to as ‘ PIDB’) was required to collect tax at source (TCS) as per the provisions of section 206

SHRI RAM CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

206/- only. Further , the assessee failed to explain the source of the above said cash deposit and, therefore, the AO invoked the provisions of section 68

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 68 by relying on\nvarious decisions like N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., A Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT 205\nITR 802 (SC), Full Bench decision of Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del), Nova\nPromoters Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del), CIT Vs. Nipun Builders Ltd. 350 ITR 407\nand held that mere issuance of cheque and providing bank

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 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and notes on Clause 45 of the bill, development occurring with effect from 08/11/2016, the extract of the Finance Act, 2018 relating to provisions u/s. 115BBE of the Act and object sought to be achieved by AO. It was contended that CBDT's Circular No. 3 of dated 20/01/2017 issued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AMARJIT SINGH , BATHINDA

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rest of the pleas taken by the Department are peripheral arguments in support of this central point. We have taken note of the fact while adjudicating the Cross Objections. It emerges out from the record that a search was carried out at the premises of the assessee

SANJEEV GUPTA & SONS (HUF),LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-6(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Bench That Arguments Advanced In Ita 1335/Chd/2018 Would Address The Issues In Ita 1336/Chd/2018 Also.

section 68 of the Act are not applicable with respect to credits in saving bank account sans any valid and proper books of account." 3. Addressing the additional ground, it was his submission that it was a legal ground which had not been raised before the CIT(A) or the ITAT originally. It was his argument that raising

SH. NEERAJ JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-7(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Bench That Arguments Advanced In Ita 1335/Chd/2018 Would Address The Issues In Ita 1336/Chd/2018 Also.

section 68 of the Act are not applicable with respect to credits in saving bank account sans any valid and proper books of account." 3. Addressing the additional ground, it was his submission that it was a legal ground which had not been raised before the CIT(A) or the ITAT originally. It was his argument that raising

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

section 115BBE of the income tax act at all. Infact, if an addition is attempted to be made under sec 68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

section 115BBE of the income tax act at all. Infact, if an addition is attempted to be made under sec 68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

section 115BBE of the income tax act at all. Infact, if an addition is attempted to be made under sec 68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

section 115BBE of the income tax act at all. Infact, if an addition is attempted to be made under sec 68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

section 115BBE of the income tax act at all. Infact, if an addition is attempted to be made under sec 68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

section 115BBE of the income tax act at all. Infact, if an addition is attempted to be made under sec 68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department