SHRI GAURAV AGRAWAL,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

deposit in bank account, Rs. 16,96,390/- on account of cash found during the course of search, Rs. 2,58,68,950/- on account of unaccounted money and Rs. 1,04,33,573/- on account of unexplained transaction in books of account. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) deleted addition

ABDUL RAZAQUE,JABALPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 is allowed while ground nos

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Abdul Razaque, Vs. Acit, 903, Badi Omti, Jabalpur, M.P. Circle-2(1), Jabalpur Pan:Afgpr9967N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl Jcit(A), Mysore, Wherein The Ld. Addl Jcit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 19.11.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/Jaddl Jcit(A)- Mysore Was Not Justified In Deciding The Legal Ground That Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass To Examine The Reasons Of (I) Return Filed After 7.11.2016' & Cash Deposit During Demonetization Period & Addition Was Made On Some Other Issue Which Was Not The Reason For Selection & Without Taking Any Approval From Higher Authorities. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/Jaddl Jcit(A)-Mysore Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 4,48,584 By Ignoring All The Evidences & Documents By Simply Observing That No New Documents Were Filed Even Though Documents Which Are Filed Are Sufficient & Self-Explanatory & The Order Of Learned Cit Appeals Is Passed In A Mechanical Manner, Without Any Application Of Mind & Appears That It Was Passed With Predetermined Mind.

deposits of Rs. 4,84,584/- in F.Y. 2015-16, the assessee had sufficient cash in hand and had made an earlier withdrawal. However, the ld. AO did not accept the said submission and he added back the sum of Rs. 4,48,584/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68

AMARJEER PRASAD JAISWAL,SINGRAULI vs. ITO,SINGRAULI WARD, SINGRAULI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleamarjeet Prasad Jaiswal, Vs Ito, Amarjeet Photocopy, Singrauli Ward, Chitrangi, Singrauli, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh-486882 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Arzpa1544R Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Cash Deposit in the Bank Account by invoking a provision of Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 1 | P a g e 02. Because

SHRI GOVIND RATHI, PROP. GOVIND DALL MILL,HOSHANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Govind Rathi, Dy. Cit, Vs. Circle – Itarsi, Prop: Govind Dall Mill

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide order dated 13/2/2015. 2.1 The appeal raises two issues, which shall be taken up in seriatim. The first issue is in respect of two additions for Rs.4.00 lacs and Rs.1.50 lacs, i.e., at an aggregate of Rs.5.50 lacs, u/s. 68

NAGAR PANCHAYAT,BANDA vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Nagar Panchayat, Banda, Vs. The Acit, Nagar Parishad Building, Banda, Sagar, Circle Sagar, Sagar Banda Nagar S.O. Madhya Pradesh Pan:Aaaln0246R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 7.05.2024 Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Dcit, Circle-Sagar, Madhya Pradesh Passed On 10.12.2019 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre ('Nfac) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Sagar ('Ao) In Adding A Sum Of Rs. 68,21,182/- To The Income Of The Assessee U/S. 69A As Unexplained Money. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.3 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Is Opposed To The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play.

cash deposits were deposited in the assessee’s bank account and it was for the assessee to explain the source of these deposits. In the absence of explanation coming from the assessee for the deposits, the same was liable to be treated as unexplained within the meaning of section 68

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR BAN SHYAM BAND,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita Nos. 98 & 99/Jab/2013 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2007-08   Shri Manoj Kumar Ben, Income Tax Officer, Shri Shyam Band, Near Vs Ward 1 (1), Lordganj Thana, Jabalpur Jabalpur Pan : Agopb 2241 C / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Sh. M.M. Nema, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Kul Bharat:-

Section 69 of the Act, made addition of entire cash deposits of Rs.76,48,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) who, after considering the submissions of the assessee, sustained the addition to the extent of peak credit, i.e. Rs.8,57,521/- vide order dated 23.07.2012 and, accordingly, given

JAINAM GROUP CHHINDWARA,CHHINDWARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed statistical purposes

cash deposits amounting to\nRs. 80,50,000/- were not reflected in the assessee's return. The assessee had\nnot offered any income on this account for taxation and the assessee had not\nfurnished any explanation with regard to the same. Therefore, he added back\nthe amount of Rs. 80,50,000/- to the income of the assessee under section

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and brought the same to the tax, as per the provisions of section 115BBE. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Thereafter, the ld. AO issued penalty notices under section 274 r.w.s 271 AAC(1) asking the assessee why an order

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and brought the same to the tax, as per the provisions of section 115BBE. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Thereafter, the ld. AO issued penalty notices under section 274 r.w.s 271 AAC(1) asking the assessee why an order

DEVENRA KUMAR GUPTA,REWA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Devendra Kumar Gupta V. Acit Circle Satna 17/304, Venkat Road, Ghoghar, Income Tax Office, Aaykar Rewa-486001. Bhawan, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Pan: Ahapg6843Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate. Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

section 68 and mechanical order was passed which is bad in law . Page 2 of 6 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi was not justified in confirming the action of AO without appreciating the fact that appellant have duly filed the figures of earlier year also and further there was sufficient cash balance

SANJAY RATHI,CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 212/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2010-11   Sanjay Rathi, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of M/S. Rathi Industries, Vs Chindwara-1, Sausar, Chhindwara (Mp) Chindwara (Mp) Pan : Acppr 7820 Q / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri. P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 11.08.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Ito/W.1/Cwa/039/13-14, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 11.03.2013 Framed By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

Section 68 of the Act, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that even though evidences were filed to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash creditors, but during the cross-examination the alleged cash creditors did not accept to have provided loans. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities

SHAILESH JAISWAL,,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, - KATNI, KATNI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2005-06 Shailesh Jaiswal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaiswal Dhaba, Ward-Katni, (M.P.) Kuthla Thana, Pureni, Katni (M.P.) [Pan: Adtpj 3555H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 in terms of trite law, toward which we may cite some case law: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik

DAYANAND PARYANI,SIDHI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER , SINGRAULI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11 Dayanand Paryani V. Income Tax Officer Madhur Courier Service Income Tax Office, Opposite Raj Vilas Hotel, Singrauli, Tali Road, Martand Complex Rew, Sidhi- Waidhan, Singrauli- 486001. 486886 Pan: Aespp8087N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate. Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 09 2025 O R D E R

section 68 of the Act without considering the alternate submission of the appellant that if at all addition have to be made it is to made only of peak credit. 5. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Briefly stated facts are that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- SATNA vs. SHRI JAMMU BEG,

In the result, the levy of penalty is cancelled and the appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/S Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh.

68 and imposed penalty under Sections 271Dand 271E. The tribunal deleted penalty imposed by AO. The High Court held that loans taken were genuine and same was for business Jammu Beg. exigency. It was not case of undisclosed income. Reasonable cause for not levying penalty existed and Tribuna lwas justified deleting penalty. In the case of KRISHNAPATHAK (HUF) vs. INCOME

ABHISHEK PUROHIT, SAGAR,SAGAR vs. ITO WARD (3) SAGAR, SAGAR

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Abhishek Purohit, Vs. Ito, Kotwali Road, Ward (3), Behind Putrishala School, Sagar Sagar. Pan : Asbpp 4859M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023

cash deposit in Saving Bank Account(s) (AIR, Total turnover and other income in Part-A, P&L of ITR).” It was noticed that the assessee had made deposits aggregating to Rs.87,43,090/- in his I.T.A. No.47/Jab/2022 2 Bank account being maintained with ICICI Bank. The statutory notices under Sections 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL ,SATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE, SATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal V. Acit Circle Satna Blooms Campus, Nh-75, Panna Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Road, Satna (Mp)-485001. Lines, Satna, Mp-485001. Tan/Pan:Ackpa2596H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

deposit of TDS without quoting under which section its being disallowed. 9 Considering the fact that assessee paid Rs. 2,40,000/as consultancy fee and Rs. 4,00,000/- as salary to his daughter — Sumedha Agrawal who is well qualified in MBA and giving her valuable service to the assessee for his business. Ld. CIT (A) erred in disallowing amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. SHRI SANDESH KUMAR JAIN, JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is partly allowed

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

deposits (assets) and cash credits could be reasonably attributed to the pre-existing fund of concealed income or they were reasonably explained by reference to the concealed income earned in the relevant year. In Coimbatore Spg & Wvg Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 375 (Mad), the Hon‟ble Court held that once the Tribunal finds „excess‟ stock after rejecting

M/S AMBAJEE JEWELLERS JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JABALPUR-1,, JABALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

cash deposits during the demonetization period as compared to pre demonetization period. Subsequently, the assessment was completed on an assessed income of Rs.2,66,90,289/- after making an addition of Rs.2,12,82,278/- on account of allegedly bogus sales u/s. 68 of the Act. The learned PCIT called for the records of the case and observed from