SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

1), Indore (LT.A No. 490/Ind./2008 dated 27-11- 2008. which was on Instruction No. 10/2004 dated 20-09-2004 of the CBDT. However, in Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Ltd vs DCIT [1998] reported in 231 ITR 556, the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has taken a contrary view. Similar is the position of the Hon'ble Madras

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.

201 & 202/GTY/2024 Sumaiya Enterprise (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 29.02.2024. This order itself is on the order passed under Section 147/144 of the Act, dated 29.02.2024, passed by the Ld. AO, in an exparte manner. It is seen that the assessee had made a number of cash deposits and withdrawals on account of which his case

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.

201 & 202/GTY/2024 Sumaiya Enterprise (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 29.02.2024. This order itself is on the order passed under Section 147/144 of the Act, dated 29.02.2024, passed by the Ld. AO, in an exparte manner. It is seen that the assessee had made a number of cash deposits and withdrawals on account of which his case