MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

deposit of cash by the assessee. The assessee did not justify what prevented them to file the complete records than only for 3 months. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had e-filed its return of income

CHAND MONAMMAD,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), AJMER

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits 19 SHRI CHAND MOHAMMAD VS ITO, WARD 1(3), AJMER of Rs.5,57,64,348/- in your various bank accounts may be treated as receipts of marble trades routed through your bank accounts. It may further be stated that in the case of Smt. Anita Choudhary, the Hon’ble ITAT vide its order dated

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

cash deposit\nin the bank account. Which is illegal and the assessment order is liable to be\nquashed for this kindly refer following decision.\n2.1 In the case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 0343(Raj.)the Hon'ble High\nCourt Of Rajasthan Held that It is only when, in proceedings under s.147 the AO\nassesses or reassesses

MO. SHARIPH KURESHI,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD-4 SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits also. The profit was also part of the deposit made by the appellant and therefore his contention is not correct. Therefore, the ground is not tenable and is dismissed”. We are afraid that the conclusion drawn by the Ld.CIT(A) is farfetched. We disagree with the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. We would like to refer to section

LISAMMA SEBASTIAN,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

deposited cash in her bank account, following due procedure and issue of notice u/s 148. The re-assessment proceedings were completed by the AO, after affording sufficient opportunities to the appellant. Section 147 along with the first proviso is reproduced here under "If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

deposit in the bank account of the assessee as in income tax, there is no concept of materiality. It is difficult to believe that such a large company sold its scrap in cash to scrap dealers. Further, the sale bills and cash receipts have not been brought before the AO or Id. PCIT. Ground No. 11: Non verification of ITNS

DILIP SINGH ,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU , JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

deposits of Rs. 7.50,000/- are added to the income of the assessee uls 69A of the Act. I am satisfied that assessee has concealed particulars of his income. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is being initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 7,50,000/-] 6. As per Profit and loss account submitted

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SMT. SUDARSHNA SOMANI, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits and withdrawals alongwith exact names and addresses of depositors and beneficiaries to whom payments were submitted to the AO. But, the assessee has failed and expressed her inability to provide names and addresses of all the beneficiaries and to produce them for identification and confirmation. Therefore, it is confirmed that the assessee is engaged in the business

ACIT, AJMER vs. PRAKASH CHAND VIJAYVARGIYA, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits and withdrawals alongwith exact names and addresses of depositors and beneficiaries to whom payments were submitted to the AO. But, the assessee has failed and expressed her inability to provide names and addresses of all the beneficiaries and to produce them for identification and confirmation. Therefore, it is confirmed that the assessee is engaged in the business

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMENR vs. SMT. SUDARSHNA SOMANI, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits and withdrawals alongwith exact names and addresses of depositors and beneficiaries to whom payments were submitted to the AO. But, the assessee has failed and expressed her inability to provide names and addresses of all the beneficiaries and to produce them for identification and confirmation. Therefore, it is confirmed that the assessee is engaged in the business

ACIT, AJMER vs. PRAKASH CHAND VIJAYVARGIYA, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits and withdrawals alongwith exact names and addresses of depositors and beneficiaries to whom payments were submitted to the AO. But, the assessee has failed and expressed her inability to provide names and addresses of all the beneficiaries and to produce them for identification and confirmation. Therefore, it is confirmed that the assessee is engaged in the business

ACIT, AJMER vs. ABHISHEK KUMAWAT, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits and withdrawals alongwith exact names and addresses of depositors and beneficiaries to whom payments were submitted to the AO. But, the assessee has failed and expressed her inability to provide names and addresses of all the beneficiaries and to produce them for identification and confirmation. Therefore, it is confirmed that the assessee is engaged in the business

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SINGHAL, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits and withdrawals alongwith exact names and addresses of depositors and beneficiaries to whom payments were submitted to the AO. But, the assessee has failed and expressed her inability to provide names and addresses of all the beneficiaries and to produce them for identification and confirmation. Therefore, it is confirmed that the assessee is engaged in the business

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SMT. SUDARSHNA SOMANI, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits and withdrawals alongwith exact names and addresses of depositors and beneficiaries to whom payments were submitted to the AO. But, the assessee has failed and expressed her inability to provide names and addresses of all the beneficiaries and to produce them for identification and confirmation. Therefore, it is confirmed that the assessee is engaged in the business

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SMT. KUSUM DEVI VIJAYVARGIYA, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits and withdrawals alongwith exact names and addresses of depositors and beneficiaries to whom payments were submitted to the AO. But, the assessee has failed and expressed her inability to provide names and addresses of all the beneficiaries and to produce them for identification and confirmation. Therefore, it is confirmed that the assessee is engaged in the business

ACIT, AJMER vs. ABHISHEK KUMAWAT, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits and withdrawals alongwith exact names and addresses of depositors and beneficiaries to whom payments were submitted to the AO. But, the assessee has failed and expressed her inability to provide names and addresses of all the beneficiaries and to produce them for identification and confirmation. Therefore, it is confirmed that the assessee is engaged in the business

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SMT. KUSUM DEVI VIJAYVARGIYA, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits and withdrawals alongwith exact names and addresses of depositors and beneficiaries to whom payments were submitted to the AO. But, the assessee has failed and expressed her inability to provide names and addresses of all the beneficiaries and to produce them for identification and confirmation. Therefore, it is confirmed that the assessee is engaged in the business

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SHRI VASU DEV SOMANI, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits and withdrawals alongwith exact names and addresses of depositors and beneficiaries to whom payments were submitted to the AO. But, the assessee has failed and expressed her inability to provide names and addresses of all the beneficiaries and to produce them for identification and confirmation. Therefore, it is confirmed that the assessee is engaged in the business