DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT (A), SAGAR

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

147 is purely based on AIR-reported bank deposits without any independent verification or tangible evidence. This amounts to a borrowed satisfaction, which has been consistently held by judicial forums (including Harmeet Singh vs. ITO) as invalid and unsustainable in law. 5. Addition of ₹31,24,799/- as Income is Arbitrary and Unjust The entire cash deposit has been wrongly

SMT. LALITA BAI KHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2007-08 Smt. Lalita Bai Khandelwal V. Income Tax Officer Mangalwara Chouraha Ward 1 Babai, Hoshangabad

u/s. 147 of the Act shows that the A.O. wanted to verify the investment made by the assessee in the purchase of immoveable property which, according to the A.O., escaped assessment. It was further contended that verification of the source of investment cannot be termed as escapement of income and hence the order passed by the A.O. is void

SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

153(2)). There is in fact no, nor could be any, dispute on this aspect of the matter. The assessment proceedings were accordingly commenced, and the subsequent death of the MKJ during the assessment proceedings would not operate to disrupt or impair this jurisdiction, 2 Saurabh Singhai v. ITO since validly assumed, in any manner. Assessment was finally framed