M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

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

invested remained unexplained - Whether once a credit in books of assessee is found to be unexplained, a presumption is drawn against assessee in terms of section 68

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 of the Act, being unexplained cash receipts that do not fall within the definition of "income from other sources". (v) M/s SVS Oils Mills Vs The ACIT on 26.3.2019 in the High court of Judicature at Madras Wherein it is stated that there is a series of five provisions viz.. Section 69-Unexplained investments

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 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139;" The section 115BBE referred the section of 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, these sections speaks about the unexplained investment

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

unexplained income detected or added by the income tax authorities. 25. It is pertinent to mention here that even though, the Government noticed that the aforesaid provisions of sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

unexplained income detected or added by the income tax authorities. 25. It is pertinent to mention here that even though, the Government noticed that the aforesaid provisions of sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

unexplained income detected or added by the income tax authorities. 25. It is pertinent to mention here that even though, the Government noticed that the aforesaid provisions of sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

unexplained income detected or added by the income tax authorities. 25. It is pertinent to mention here that even though, the Government noticed that the aforesaid provisions of sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

unexplained income detected or added by the income tax authorities. 25. It is pertinent to mention here that even though, the Government noticed that the aforesaid provisions of sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

unexplained income detected or added by the income tax authorities. 25. It is pertinent to mention here that even though, the Government noticed that the aforesaid provisions of sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

unexplained income detected or added by the income tax authorities. 25. It is pertinent to mention here that even though, the Government noticed that the aforesaid provisions of sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D can be misused by the assessees to circumvent the ‘Voluntary ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri

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)

unexplained investment as deemed income u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. SECTION 68 vs. 69 The AR has contended

M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

unexplained expenditure which is deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income.] SECTION 115BBE [3052][Tax on income referred to in section 68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. [3052]["(1) Where the total income of an assessee

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)

unexplained investment in hospital renovation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer accepted the returned income after due verification of the books of accounts and relevant documents. However, the PCIT, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 263, set aside the assessment order, holding that the AO failed to examine the nature of the surrendered income and erroneously

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

M/S AGYA RAM MANOHAR LAL,KHANNA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

investment in stocks and then again at page 86, again there is reference to excess cash u/s 69 and by way of ground No.8 & 9, the challenge has been made on account of the judgement in the case of Kim Pharma. Thus, the arguments of the CIT, (DR) that whether this invoking of section 69 was or not there

SHRI BHUWAN GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Unexplained income, investment or expenditure alone could be deemed income as a result of invocation of deeming provisions by the Assessing Officer, but could never be declared by an assessee. (ii) Deeming income cannot represent real income and only real income could be declared by an assessee under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961. (iii) Apparent

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 wherein any sum is found credited in the books, of which the assessee offers no explanation about the ‘nature and source thereof’ or the explanation offered by him is not found satisfactory by the AO. Section 69 is attracted to the unexplained investments

SH. SANDEEP KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD-4, KHANNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

unexplained investment under section 68 of the Act, without confronting the assessee with any information in her possession which shows

RAJIV GOYAL, PATIALA,PATIALA, PUNJAB vs. JAO ITO WARD-3, PATIALA, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A) have not been considered properly.

investment u/s 69 r.w. section 115BBE is not in order. 5. That the reply as submitted during the proceedings before the CIT(A) have not been considered properly. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off." 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that