EASTMAN INTERNATIONAL,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

Section 68. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the reconciliations as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income

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)

68 of I.T.Act on account of unexplained cash credit during the A.Y. 2017-18. Now, the assessee is producing the additional evidence u/s 46A. In this regard, it is submitted that as per section

M/S VIRTUOSO NETSOFT PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 03/04/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 64,92,640/-, later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the assessee

M/S SURYA WORLD EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTE,RAJPURA vs. DCIT , CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both for non- prosecution and on merits

Bench: Us. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & To Avoid Repetition, We Are Taking Ita No. 879/Del/2018 As The Lead Appeal & Reproducing The Facts, Grounds Raised & The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)Karnal, For Completeness. 2. The Case Was Listed For Hearing On 29/5/2025 , When The Matter Was Called, There Was No Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee. It Is Noted From The Record That Earlier Mr. Tej Mohan, Advocate, Was Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, No Adjournment Request Or Explanation For Non-Appearance Has Been Filed. The Conduct Of The Assessee Indicates A Lack Of Interest In Prosecuting The Appeal. However, Considering Non- Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Many Earlier Occasions & The Nature Of The Issues Involved, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits As Well.

section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits in the bank account is confirmed.” 4. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee is a habitual defaulter who has consistently failed to appear during the course of the assessment/appellate proceedings. It was further submitted that, by the provisions

M/S SURYA WORLD EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTE,RAJPURA vs. DCIT , CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both for non- prosecution and on merits

Bench: Us. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & To Avoid Repetition, We Are Taking Ita No. 879/Del/2018 As The Lead Appeal & Reproducing The Facts, Grounds Raised & The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)Karnal, For Completeness. 2. The Case Was Listed For Hearing On 29/5/2025 , When The Matter Was Called, There Was No Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee. It Is Noted From The Record That Earlier Mr. Tej Mohan, Advocate, Was Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, No Adjournment Request Or Explanation For Non-Appearance Has Been Filed. The Conduct Of The Assessee Indicates A Lack Of Interest In Prosecuting The Appeal. However, Considering Non- Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Many Earlier Occasions & The Nature Of The Issues Involved, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits As Well.

section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits in the bank account is confirmed.” 4. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee is a habitual defaulter who has consistently failed to appear during the course of the assessment/appellate proceedings. It was further submitted that, by the provisions

N.H. CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 68, hence AO made the addition. 7. Before ld. CIT(A), assessee has submitted copy of PAN number of each creditor, copy of the Bank Statement and copy of loan confirmation. Such details have been entertained by the CIT(A) under Rule 46A

M/S SURYA WORLD EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTE,RAJPURA vs. DCIT , CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both for non-\nprosecution and on merits

section 68 of\nthe Act. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO on account of\nunexplained cash credits in the bank account is confirmed.\"\n4.\nThe Ld. DR submitted that the assessee is a habitual defaulter who has\nconsistently failed to appear during the course of the assessment/appellate\nproceedings. It was further submitted that, by the provisions

PAWAN KUMAR,AMBALA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 AMBALA, AMBALA CANTT

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

46A of the Income Tax Rules. 3. As per the Assessing Officer, return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was e-filed on 08.11.2017 declaring an income of Rs.2,20,660/- as Income from business & profession. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS under reason "large cash deposits in bank account(s) during the year". Information

THE BALLANA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOP. SOCIETY LIMITED,AMBALA vs. ITO, WARD-5, AMBALA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 4. Before the Tribunal, assessee sought permission to file a Paper Book containing 532 pages. The assessee wants to place on record copy of the RBI Notification bearing No. RBI/16-17/130 dated 14.11.2016 whereby assessee was A.Y.2017-18 3 prohibited

M/S K.LALL OVERSEAS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

68 and it is the primary onus of assessee only to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness.” ITA No. 165 &174-Chd-2020 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 18 of 29 10. Being aggrieved by the above additions confirmed by the CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S K LAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

68 and it is the primary onus of assessee only to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness.” ITA No. 165 &174-Chd-2020 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 18 of 29 10. Being aggrieved by the above additions confirmed by the CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone

SAHAB KUR,KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO WARD NO. III, WARD NO. III,

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

46A for considering additional evidences and the appeal of the assessee may be decided on merits accordingly. 9. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the execution of the sale deeds by Shri Harjinder Singh, who is the nephew of the assessee. The only objection raised was a minor discrepancy between

SH. RAJEEV GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 68 of the Act for the reason that filing of additional evidence is not permissible within the situations prescribed under the rule 46A

M/S BEST BUY COMMODITIES PVT LTD,LUDHIANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-VI(I), LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Proceeding To The Grounds, It Is Appropriate To Refer To One Day’S Delay Pointed Out By The Registry. A Perusal Of The Explanation Available On Record Shows That The Assessee Has Pleaded That His Counsel Shri Ajay Chaudhry Expired On 16.03.2018 I.E. On The Date Of The Cit(A)’S Order & On Account Of The Peculiar Circumstances Pleading A Human Error, One Day’S Delay Is Explained As Inadvertent Mistake. The Explanation Offered Is Not Opposed By The Ld. Sr.Dr. Accordingly, Considering The Same, Delay Of One Day Is Condoned.

46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962. ITA 869/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2006-07 Page 4 of 5 8. The following submissions extracted by the CIT(A) in the impugned order also discloses that apparently reasons recorded justifying the re- opening itself was not communicated to the assessee : That assessment has been framed by making addition

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):

68 to 69 B and 69C are different. The Ld. AR had further submitted that in view that there is no repeal and saving clause after insertion of the eligible assessee in section 144C(15), the assessment initially initiated under the old regime cannot be completed in the new regime and for the above-mentioned purposes, he relied upon

SMT. GURCHARAN KAUR,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, W-5, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

section 68 were not applicable as the transaction of the assessee. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No. 3 above and even otherwise, the Ld. CIT(A), Ludhiana has erred in rejecting the evidence proving the source of funds of Sh. Sardar Singh on technical grounds under Rule 46A

PAVITAR SINGH,JAGADHRI, YAMUNANAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 653/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pavitar Singh, Ito, बना 188, Vuillage Satgoli, Nwr-W-(65)(95) Bhagu Majra, Chandigarh म Jadadhri, Yamunanagar Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bteps4094J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

46A of the IT Rules, the evidences are not relevant for FY 2009-10 and hence these evidences are rejected. The appellant fails to submit documentary evidence to prove its claim that he had accumulated savings from the past. The appellant has claimed that he has incurred loss from commodity transaction. However, no documents have been submitted to prove that

SH. PARDEEP KUMAR,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 3, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the addition is restricted to Rs

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

section 68 applies to all credit entries. Gautam Ram Sri Ram Vs. CIT 98 37 (Punjab & Haryana)" 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee drew attention of the Ld. CIT(A) to 3 the Remand Report submitted by the AO and also

BANSAL RICE TRADERS,SANGRUR vs. ITO-WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

46A. Then the case was sent to the jurisdictional assessing officer for the remand proceedings and now the learned assessing officer vide letter dated 06/03/2019 has furnished the remand report. The observations of the learned assessing officer in the remand report and our submission against the said observation are provided as under— Sufficient opportunity of being heard: At the outset