KAUSHIK INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

cash out of the total deposit in the bank account. On the very basis of reasons recorded, Ld. AO has ultimately not made any addition in the reassessment

LALTANPUIA CHAWGHLUT,AIZAWL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: The Itat Dated 15.09.2025 As Under:

deposited huge cash in his bank account for both the years and did not file his return of income u/s 139 of the Act. Accordingly, after following the due procedure for making reassessment

LALTANPUIA CHAWGHLUT,AIZAWL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: The Itat Dated 15.09.2025 As Under:

deposited huge cash in his bank account for both the years and did not file his return of income u/s 139 of the Act. Accordingly, after following the due procedure for making reassessment

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

cash deposit which is the source of the time deposit is brought to tax, telescopic benefit for the application of the funds as time deposit can be granted. Accordingly, the addition of the time Deposit of Rs. 15,00,000 is deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

cash deposit which is the source of the time deposit is brought to tax, telescopic benefit for the application of the funds as time deposit can be granted. Accordingly, the addition of the time Deposit of Rs. 15,00,000 is deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND vs. IMKUMMONGLA PONGEN, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

cash deposits amounting to ITA No.: 156/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Imkummongla Pongen. ₹2,66,07,000/- in her bank account during the FY 2015-16 but did not file her ITR for the relevant AY 2016-17, therefore, the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee but there was no compliance. Hence

SUMAIYA ENTERPRISE,BARPETA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer, Nor Any Return Of Income Was Filed. Thereafter, The Ld. Assessing Officer Proceeded To Add Rs. 1,15,71,000/- Under Section 69A & 69C Of The Act.

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 1,15,71,000/- u/s 69C & 69A of I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of whole amount of cash deposits

SUMAIYA ENTERPRISE,BARPETA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer, Nor Any Return Of Income Was Filed. Thereafter, The Ld. Assessing Officer Proceeded To Add Rs. 1,15,71,000/- Under Section 69A & 69C Of The Act.

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 1,15,71,000/- u/s 69C & 69A of I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of whole amount of cash deposits

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings initiated by the department were bad in law as no notice u/s.148A and subsequent order passed u/s148(d) were served on your appellant. Further, copies of satisfaction note and sanction from higher authority was also not provided to your appellant before issuing notice u/s. 148. The notice u/s. 148 was issued by JAO and not by NFAC

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings initiated by the department were bad in law as no notice u/s.148A and subsequent order passed u/s148(d) were served on your appellant. Further, copies of satisfaction note and sanction from higher authority was also not provided to your appellant before issuing notice u/s. 148. The notice u/s. 148 was issued by JAO and not by NFAC

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. PAWAN CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

deposit made in the bank account of a third party was from the assessee company. No opportunity to cross examine any these parties was provided to the assessee. The bank statements based on which the cash trail was Page 11 of 24 I.T.A. Nos.: 72 & 73/GTY/2020 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Pawan Cement Company Pvt. Ltd. prepared are part

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. PAWAN CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

deposit made in the bank account of a third party was from the assessee company. No opportunity to cross examine any these parties was provided to the assessee. The bank statements based on which the cash trail was Page 11 of 24 I.T.A. Nos.: 72 & 73/GTY/2020 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Pawan Cement Company Pvt. Ltd. prepared are part

AMPLEX PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGARTALA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

deposited certain cash and the source thereof was questionable. The Assessing Officer should have made further probe which he failed to do. Moreover, the remedy with the Department lay in reopening the case of the investors and the addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee." The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA (HUF), DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

cash and there was no trail. The assessee therein failed to explain why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which was ascribed to cash-in-hand and not to any contemporaneous evidence as cash withdrawn from bank on that or nearby dates. The assessee therein failed to explain how the cash was transmitted from Mumbai, where