D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. BHAGWATI DEVII 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

66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. RAVI 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

66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. USHA 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

66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. VISHAL 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

66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. VINAY 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

66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. PRAMOD KUMAR 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

66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under

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

66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. MEENAKSHI BAMALWA SONI, 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

66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under

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

66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. SHEETAL 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

66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under

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

66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. VINOD 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

66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under

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

66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under

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

66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section 132, but whatever has been taken under

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

66,86,730/- being difference in purchases as per books and figures reported in GST ignoring the reconciliation submitted with evidences on record. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs.29,15,74,364/- being difference in sales as per books and figures reported

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAS OFFICER

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

66,86,730/- being difference in purchases as per books and figures reported in GST ignoring the reconciliation submitted with evidences on record. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs.29,15,74,364/- being difference in sales as per books and figures reported

SMT. SANTOSH BAMALWA,DIBRUGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, 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 Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumarsmt. Santosh Bamalwa Acit, Circle-1 C/O A.K. Varma, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mahalaya Road, Dibrugarh- Milan Nagar, Dibrugarh-786003, 786001, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aedpb9900P Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

Section 68 of the Act by the AO of ₹ 1,51,02,134/- which has been affirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 2 Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Vs ACIT 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed return of income on 29/08/2012 declaring total income of ₹ 7,66

NIRJA KHATUWALA,NAGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

66,294/- emanates out of balances brought forward from the earlier years in the previous year (not in this F.Y.) and the assessee had later squared up this credit in the subsequent assessment year. According to ld. A.R, these are trade credits and not a sum of money credited in the books of the assessee and therefore Section 68