CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

158-BA to assess the "undisclosed income", and (ii) regular assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act to make assessment qua income other than undisclosed income. Secondly, that the "undisclosed income" was chargeable to tax at a special rate of 60% under Section 113 whereas income other than "undisclosed income" was required to be assessed under regular assessment

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

158-BA to assess the "undisclosed income", and (ii) regular assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act to make assessment qua income other than undisclosed income. Secondly, that the "undisclosed income" was chargeable to tax at a special rate of 60% under Section 113 whereas income other than "undisclosed income" was required to be assessed under regular assessment

RAKESH DIVEDI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(6), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalrakesh Divedi, Income Tax Officer, 87, Triveni Apartments, Ward-43(6), Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi - Vs. 110034. Pan-Apcpd9179A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Pranshu Singhal, Ca Assessee By & Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 07.03.2025 In Appeal No.40/10204/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(3) U/S 143(3) Of The Act (‘The Act’ For Short) Dated 20.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Proprietor Of M/S Triambkay Gauri Impex. The Information Was Received By The Ao From Investigation Wing That There Were Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assesse With Icici Bank, However, Income Of The Assessee & Gross Receipt Has Not Rakesh Divedi Vs. Income Tax Officer Commensurate With The Cash So Deposited, Therefore, After Recording The Reason U/S 147, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 31.03.2016 After Obtaining Statutory Approval From The Pcit. Thereafter, Assessment Was Completed Vide Order Dated 20.12.2016 Wherein Total Addition Of Rs. 5,20,88,345/- Was Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Cash Deposited In The Bank Accounts By Holding The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits. 3. Against The Said Order, Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Who Vide Impugned Order Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee & Directed The Ao To Make Addition Of Peak Credit Of The Total Deposits In The Bank Accounts.

158- BC was issued- For block period, returns were filed that were processed u/s. 143 (1)- However, notice u/s. 148 was issued by AO, on basis of certain reasons recorded- Assessee objected to same before AO, that was rejected and assessment was completed u/ss. 143(3) and 147-CIT(A) found that reason recorded by Joint Commissioner of Income

RAJESH KUMAR,SONEPAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

u/s 143(1) on 11/06/1996. 3. CIT v Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd 308 ITR 249 (Madras) "Applying the principles enunciated in the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the Delhi High Court, cited supra, the Tribunal is right in coming to a conclusion that no action could be initiated under section 147 of the Act, when there

DCIT, GURUGRAM vs. RAJESH KUMAR, SONEPAT

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

u/s 143(1) on 11/06/1996. 3. CIT v Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd 308 ITR 249 (Madras) "Applying the principles enunciated in the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the Delhi High Court, cited supra, the Tribunal is right in coming to a conclusion that no action could be initiated under section 147 of the Act, when there

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KAUTILYA MONETARY SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Ito, Vs. Kautilya Monetary Services Pvt. Ward-5(2), Ltd., New Delhi. 10, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Pan: Aaack3995P Co No.171/Del/2015 (Ita No.5975/Del/2014) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Kautilya Monetary Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 10, Local Shopping Centre, Ward-5(2), Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack3995P

u/s 153C of the IT Act and has also challenged the deletion of the addition on merit, however, the Revenue has not challenged the order of the CIT(A) quashing the reassessment proceedings by invoking the 1st proviso to section 147 of the IT Act, i.e., barred by limitation. Once the CIT(A) has quashed the reassessment proceedings on account

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

158-BC was issued- For block period, returns were filed that were processed u/s. 143 (1)- However, notice u/s. 148 was issued by AO, on basis of certain reasons recorded- Assessee objected to same before AO, that was rejected and assessment was completed u/ss. 143(3) and 147-CIT(A) found that reason recorded by Joint Commissioner of Income

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

158-BC was issued- For block period, returns were filed that were processed u/s. 143 (1)- However, notice u/s. 148 was issued by AO, on basis of certain reasons recorded- Assessee objected to same before AO, that was rejected and assessment was completed u/ss. 143(3) and 147-CIT(A) found that reason recorded by Joint Commissioner of Income

SUMAN KISHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

158-BC was issued- For block period, returns were filed that were processed u/s. 143 (1)- However, notice u/s. 148 was issued by AO, on basis of certain reasons recorded- Assessee objected to same before AO, that was rejected and assessment was completed u/ss. 143(3) and 147-CIT(A) found that reason recorded by Joint Commissioner of Income

VINOD MONGIA,WAST AZAD NAGAR, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VIKAS BHAWAN,DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Vinod Mongia, Vs Ito, C-40, Street No.1A, West Ward-58(7), Azad Nagar, Delhi-110005. Vikas Bhawan, Pan-Akhpm6218R Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Jain, Adv. & Shri Nitin Kanwar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025

158 BC, the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 are applicable and no assessment could be made without issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. However, it is contended by Sri Shekhar, learned counsel for the department that in view of the expression "So far as may be" in Section

ALANKIT FINSEC LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,—(a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b)any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

PRATISHTHA IMAGES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,—(a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b)any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

PRATISHTHA IMAGES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,—(a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b)any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

ALANKIT FOREX INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,—(a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b)any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

ALKA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,—(a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b)any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

SAKSHI AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,—(a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b)any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

PRATISHTHA IMAGES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,—(a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b)any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

ALANKIT FINSEC LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,—(a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b)any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than