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

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; and (ii) the amount

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.

133A of the Act would form part of business income or was assessable under Section 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal after considering the factual aspect noticed that the amount surrendered during the survey was not reflected in the books of account and no source from where it was derived was declared

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)

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

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)

133A of Income Tax Act 1961 the appellant surrendered the amount on following grounds. 1. Rs. 14,70,000.00 on account of capital introduced in capital account which was noticed at the time of survey. 2. Rs. 17,07,029.00 on account of excess stock found during the course of survey. 3. Rs.2,16,341.00 on account of difference

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

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

survey u/s 133A was carried out. We find that the same is purely legal in nature and no new facts are required to be gone into to decide this ground of appeal. Therefore, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NTPC (Supra), the additional ground raised by the appellant is hereby

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

survey u/s 133A was carried out. We find that the same is purely legal in nature and no new facts are required to be gone into to decide this ground of appeal. Therefore, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NTPC (Supra), the additional ground raised by the appellant is hereby

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)

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

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act. Therefore, undisclosed income cannot be treated as normal business income as contended by the assessee. Thus, in view of amendment in Section-115BBE(applicable w.e.f A.Y. 2017-18) retrospectively, tax was to be calculated @60% on this additional income as per provisions of section 68/69/69A/69B/69C

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act. Therefore, undisclosed income cannot be treated as normal business income as contended by the assessee. Thus, in view of amendment in Section-115BBE(applicable w.e.f A.Y. 2017-18) retrospectively, tax was to be calculated @60% on this additional income as per provisions of section 68/69/69A/69B/69C

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)

u/s, 143(3) of the Act dated 06.06.2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Id PCIT has in erred in passing the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), without appreciating that a statute which affects substantive

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

AARGEE ENTERPRISES,KAITHAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

U/S 263 has been issued for the reason that there was a survey operation at the business premises of the assessee and assessee has offered a sum of Rs. 100,00,000/- during the course of survey and since the assessee has not paid taxes as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act, the Ld. Pr. CIT deemed

M/S ATOP FASTENERS (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

u/s 133A are not at par is not in dispute. The statements of the Director and the employees in the facts of the case in hand is under section 133A. The available legal position that retraction of statement even under section 132(4) is permissible provided the supporting evidences are made available is not in dispute. The arguments

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

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. SATGURU FOUNDATION(REGD.), MUKTSAR

In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 491, 493 & 494/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, M/S Satguru Foundation (Regd.), Central Circle, Vs Desh Bhagat College & Hospital, Patiala. Kotkapura Road, Muktsar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabas1418A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 492/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2011-12 The Acit, M/S Satguru Foundation (Regd.), Patiala. Vs Desh Bhagat College & Hospital, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabas1418A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission of having

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. SATGURU FOUNDATION(REGD), MUKTSAR

In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 491, 493 & 494/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, M/S Satguru Foundation (Regd.), Central Circle, Vs Desh Bhagat College & Hospital, Patiala. Kotkapura Road, Muktsar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabas1418A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 492/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2011-12 The Acit, M/S Satguru Foundation (Regd.), Patiala. Vs Desh Bhagat College & Hospital, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabas1418A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission of having

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. SATGURU FOUNDATION(REGD)., MUKTSAR

In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 491, 493 & 494/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, M/S Satguru Foundation (Regd.), Central Circle, Vs Desh Bhagat College & Hospital, Patiala. Kotkapura Road, Muktsar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabas1418A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 492/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2011-12 The Acit, M/S Satguru Foundation (Regd.), Patiala. Vs Desh Bhagat College & Hospital, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabas1418A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission of having