JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as Sundry Creditors) and further enhancement of Rs. 6,80,71,300/- u/s 41(1) read with section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as Sundry Creditors) and further enhancement of Rs. 6,80,71,300/- u/s 41(1) read with section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as Sundry Creditors) and further enhancement of Rs. 6,80,71,300/- u/s 41(1) read with section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as Sundry Creditors) and further enhancement of Rs. 6,80,71,300/- u/s 41(1) read with section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as Sundry Creditors) and further enhancement of Rs. 6,80,71,300/- u/s 41(1) read with section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/-. However, the assessee’s Ld. AR conveyed that no addition on account of the difference in the purchase price was made in any of the assessment years and the property was purchased in 2013 as per paper book pages 87 to 125 in which the transactions are dated 01.11.2013. It was also contended

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/-. However, the assessee’s Ld. AR conveyed that no addition on account of the difference in the purchase price was made in any of the assessment years and the property was purchased in 2013 as per paper book pages 87 to 125 in which the transactions are dated 01.11.2013. It was also contended

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/-. However, the assessee’s Ld. AR conveyed that no addition on account of the difference in the purchase price was made in any of the assessment years and the property was purchased in 2013 as per paper book pages 87 to 125 in which the transactions are dated 01.11.2013. It was also contended

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/-. However, the assessee’s Ld. AR conveyed that no addition on account of the difference in the purchase price was made in any of the assessment years and the property was purchased in 2013 as per paper book pages 87 to 125 in which the transactions are dated 01.11.2013. It was also contended

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/-. However, the assessee’s Ld. AR conveyed that no addition on account of the difference in the purchase price was made in any of the assessment years and the property was purchased in 2013 as per paper book pages 87 to 125 in which the transactions are dated 01.11.2013. It was also contended

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/-. However, the assessee’s Ld. AR conveyed that no addition on account of the difference in the purchase price was made in any of the assessment years and the property was purchased in 2013 as per paper book pages 87 to 125 in which the transactions are dated 01.11.2013. It was also contended

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/-. However, the assessee’s Ld. AR conveyed that no addition on account of the difference in the purchase price was made in any of the assessment years and the property was purchased in 2013 as per paper book pages 87 to 125 in which the transactions are dated 01.11.2013. It was also contended

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/-. However, the assessee’s Ld. AR conveyed that no addition on account of the difference in the purchase price was made in any of the assessment years and the property was purchased in 2013 as per paper book pages 87 to 125 in which the transactions are dated 01.11.2013. It was also contended

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/-. However, the assessee’s Ld. AR conveyed that no addition on account of the difference in the purchase price was made in any of the assessment years and the property was purchased in 2013 as per paper book pages 87 to 125 in which the transactions are dated 01.11.2013. It was also contended

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA vs. SHRI SATYAJIT SAHA, AGARTALA

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 69 is not at all applicable in the instant case. In my considered view, when asset of an assessee is found to be of lesser value then the value disclosed by him in the books of account then in such a situation neither there is any reason or logic for increasing the income of the assessee by the differential

SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

purchase of some properties, which did not materialise and, therefore, the cash was deposited back into the bank accounts of the assessee. Therefore, once the sources of cash deposits are explained to be out of withdrawals of cash from the bank account of the assessee, then same cannot be added to the income of the assessee as unexplained money

SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

purchase of some properties, which did not materialise and, therefore, the cash was deposited back into the bank accounts of the assessee. Therefore, once the sources of cash deposits are explained to be out of withdrawals of cash from the bank account of the assessee, then same cannot be added to the income of the assessee as unexplained money