ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. CHAKRATA FIRST AND ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Chakrata First & Circle-1(1)(1), Associates, C/O- Amit Tak 41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan Pan: Aalfc2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Ar Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

deposit was not established with any source of income. The assessee claimed that it was duly recorded in the books on account of cash sales and was considered in the Profit and Loss Account. The Assessing Officer had verified the stock and cash position as per books and had accepted the same. Complete books of account and cash book

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE 111, DEHRADUN, SUBHASH ROAD vs. M/S SURYANCHAL FURNITECH, BAHADRABAD INDUSTRIAL AREA, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 82/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Jcit(Osd), Vs M/S Suryanchal Furnitech, Circle-111, F-104, Bahadrabad Industrial Dehradun-248001 Area, Haridwar-249402 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs3475L Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074074259(1) Dated 05.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

deposit during demonetization, where the AO neither rejected books of accounts or method of account adopted by the assessee and all purchase and sales were duly recorded and assessee has already declared cash sales in its books and explanation was already part of book results, there was no avenue for lower authorities to make addition under section 68

ABHINAV RASTOGI,CHAMOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4)(4) SIRNAGAR, SIRNAGAR

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Abhinav Rastogi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tcp Market Joshimath, Ward-1(4)(4), Chamoli, Srinagar, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan :Ccrpr7932M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Mangla, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

section 69A; credit entries taken as unexplained cash credits of Rs.17,50,900/- to the extent of Rs. 11,39,922/- and the cash deposits in savings account of Rs.2,67,500/- herein; respectively, vide the following detailed discussion: “8.1 Cash deposits of Rs 2653400 – according to taxpayer it is out of cash available with him on 8/11/2016. Assessee avails

UTTRANCHAL SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

68 of I.T Act. Therefore, this ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 3.1 This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and Revenue’s vehement respective stands. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the CIT(A)/NFAC has already 4 Uttranchal Social Development Centre Pvt. Ltd. recorded a categorical

DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. KAMAL JEWELLERS, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

cash depositing in the accounts is adequately explained being sale of the jewellery and the same having been recorded in the regular books of accounts and thus, Section 68

M/S. NANAK CHAND ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 68. The addition of Rs.30,00,000/- is confirmed accordingly.” 6. Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the same explanation as was made before the ld. CIT(A) and no evidence was submit to support the claim that the cash was actually received from Shri Madan Lal and there were wrong entries done by the accountant in the books

KUNWAR TOSEEN,KOTDWAR DISTT. PAURI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KOTDWAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Sections 142(1) dated 26.09.2022, 01.11.2022, letter dated 22.12.2022 and show- cause-notices dated 29.12.2022, 15.02.2023, 27.02.2023 and 10.03.2023, no compliance was made by Assessee. Ld. AO passed assessment order dated 14.03.2023. In pursuance to assessment order dated 14.03.2023. Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 05.09.2023. 3. Against assessment order dated 14.03.2023 and penalty order 05.09.2023, the assessee filed applications

KUNWAR TOSEEN,KOTDWAR DISTT. PAURI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTDWAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Sections 142(1) dated 26.09.2022, 01.11.2022, letter dated 22.12.2022 and show- cause-notices dated 29.12.2022, 15.02.2023, 27.02.2023 and 10.03.2023, no compliance was made by Assessee. Ld. AO passed assessment order dated 14.03.2023. In pursuance to assessment order dated 14.03.2023. Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 05.09.2023. 3. Against assessment order dated 14.03.2023 and penalty order 05.09.2023, the assessee filed applications

B.A. INTERNATIONAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(3)(1), HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sumit Kaur Vs Cit(Appeals)/ Ito C/O-Matta Garg & Co., 13A, Subhash 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Road, Dehradun Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Dmapk1959K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.11.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Advocate By Profession & Return Of Income Was Filed On 21.08.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 63,20,030/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Inr 41 Lakhs Was Made By Holding The Investment Made In Fdr As Unexplained & Further Invoked The Provision Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. In First Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Enhanced The Income & Confirmed The Addition Of Inr 60 Lakhs U/S 68 Of The Act By Holding That The Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period Is Unexplained & No Addition Is Sustained Towards The Investment In Fdr.

section 115BBE of the Act. 3. In first appeal, Ld.CIT(A) enhanced the income and confirmed the addition of INR 60 Lakhs u/s 68 of the Act by holding that the cash deposited

SUMIT KAUR,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sumit Kaur Vs Cit(Appeals)/ Ito C/O-Matta Garg & Co., 13A, Subhash 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Road, Dehradun Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Dmapk1959K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.11.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Advocate By Profession & Return Of Income Was Filed On 21.08.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 63,20,030/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Inr 41 Lakhs Was Made By Holding The Investment Made In Fdr As Unexplained & Further Invoked The Provision Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. In First Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Enhanced The Income & Confirmed The Addition Of Inr 60 Lakhs U/S 68 Of The Act By Holding That The Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period Is Unexplained & No Addition Is Sustained Towards The Investment In Fdr.

section 115BBE of the Act. 3. In first appeal, Ld.CIT(A) enhanced the income and confirmed the addition of INR 60 Lakhs u/s 68 of the Act by holding that the cash deposited

AJAY KUMAR MAMGAIN,RISHIKESH vs. ITO, WARD-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68 of Rs 11 lakhs. 2. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual who filed his return of income on 31-3- 2016 declaring an income of ₹ 3 74340/–. Action under section 147 of the income tax act was initiated and the notice under section 148 was issued on 24/3/2017. In response to that notice, assessee

SHRI KAPIL KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Kapil Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 10, Lane No. 6B, Ward-1(1)(4), Ashirwad Enclave, Dehradun Dehradun Pan :Cespk5488L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

deposits during demonetization; in his PPF account as unexplained cash credits under section 68 r.w.s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as the latter

VEDVATI SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

cash deposits in the bank accounts u/s 68 of the Act despite the fact that the appellant admittedly does not maintain books of account nor any books of accounts were found during the course of search and, therefore, the said charging of section

VEDVATI SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

cash deposits in the bank accounts u/s 68 of the Act despite the fact that the appellant admittedly does not maintain books of account nor any books of accounts were found during the course of search and, therefore, the said charging of section

VEDVATI SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CC, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

cash deposits in the bank accounts u/s 68 of the Act despite the fact that the appellant admittedly does not maintain books of account nor any books of accounts were found during the course of search and, therefore, the said charging of section

VEDVATI SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT,CC, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

cash deposits in the bank accounts u/s 68 of the Act despite the fact that the appellant admittedly does not maintain books of account nor any books of accounts were found during the course of search and, therefore, the said charging of section

VEDVATI SINGH ,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

cash deposits in the bank accounts u/s 68 of the Act despite the fact that the appellant admittedly does not maintain books of account nor any books of accounts were found during the course of search and, therefore, the said charging of section

VEDVATI SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

cash deposits in the bank accounts u/s 68 of the Act despite the fact that the appellant admittedly does not maintain books of account nor any books of accounts were found during the course of search and, therefore, the said charging of section