MONIKA CHAKARVARTY,KOTA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, CIRCLE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 412 & 413/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2017-18 Monika Chakarvarty Prop. M/s Vipin Medicals, Nayapura, Kota. cuke Vs. DCIT Circle, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AELPC 3801 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.), Shri Sorabh Harsh (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anup Singh (Ad

reassessment proceedings stated that the reason for the cash deposit of Rs. 86887000/- is that the cash sale of medicines

MONIKA CHAKARVARTY,KOTA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings stated that the reason for the cash deposit of Rs. 86887000/- is that the cash sale of medicines

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Motion Education Limited, 394, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota Private स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAICM4637L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Motion Limited, CO. Nos.20 & 21/JP/2025 (Arising out of ITA. Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 &

cash deposit; therefore, the same amount was added to the total income of the assessee company treated as unexplained money as per provision of section 69A of the Act. DCIT vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd. 6. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised

AKSHAT LOYALKA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-C-(101)(1), JAIPUR

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

cash available and in absence of any evidence of utilization thereof\nelsewhere, the same was deposited in the bank.\nGOA 4: Application of Sec. 115BBE – invalid\n1.1 Invoking Sec.115BBE of the Act is without jurisdiction:The ld. AO Vaguely invoked\nSec.115BBE of theAct absolutely without any discussion. On merits, there is absolutely\nno case made out by AO to invoke

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

Reassessment—Reopening of assessment—AO on basis of\nAIR information noted that assessee made deposit in his bank account\nin PNB—AO recorded that in response to notice under section 148;\nassessee neither filed return of income nor responded—Assessing\nOfficer ultimately by-passing assessment order made addition on\naccount of undisclosed cash

SUSHILA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment was totally\nwrong is not correct, as the reason given was cash deposited in bank\nwhich is correct and the same

MALI RAM YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. ITO, BEHROR

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

deposited Rs.16,38,600/- issued notice of reassessment and completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s.147. ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal of the assessee quashing the reassessment notice and the consequent assessment as well. 1.8 The assessee finally relies of the following decisions in support of his case- • Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO ITA 3814/Del/11 ITAT-Delhi • Sunrise Education Trust

RAM DEV CHANDELWAL,S/O SHRI HEERA LAL CHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - BUNDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

cash deposit””and “gross receipts” being intimately associated to each other and accordingly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,43,028/-.” The additional grounds noted above arise out of the order of the learned CIT(A)/Assessing Officer and do not require support of any additional evidence, hence, the same deserve to be admitted

BHAWANI SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(1), JPR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings is also bad in law and hence prayed to be quashed 3. The order passed u/s 144 r/w 147 of the Act is bad in law as well as on the facts of the present case being without jurisdiction and for several other reasons and hence the same is prayed to be quashed

PADAM KUMAR GOYAL,TONK vs. ITO WARD-TONK, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TONK

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

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

reassessment proceedings. The appellant has stated that in the reasons recorded, the appellant is stated to be doing business of purchases from farmers and sales to wholesellers in the name and style of M/s Gautam Trading whereas in the assessment order, the AO has made discussion about the cash deposits

HARISH KUMAR GARG,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

cash deposit in bank during the course of reassessment proceedings, it was submitted that such cash deposits are accumulation out of cash

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 deposit which came to Rs.5576435/-. Before the ld. CIT(A), besides challenging the reassessment proceedings and addition so made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

cash deposited between 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 for an amount of Rs. 31,25,91,950/- was also considered as unexplained. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the assessment, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “4. Decision:- Grounds No.1

SETH BADRI PRASAD UMMEDI DEVI PAROPKARI TRUST,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

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

cash amount had been deposited in bank account. In this regard, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted for the reason that the details of deposits made by the appellant are available in the 360 degrees profile of the departmental website of ITBA' The screen shot taken from the ITBA is affixed here as under:…………………………………. 8.3 As seen from

DHARMENDRA MEHTA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

cash deposit. Once the ld. AO has examined both of these two issues and found the same in order and no addition is proposed, he has no jurisdiction to enquire on the other issues which were not the subject matter of the reasons recorded. In the scenario, ld. AO had no jurisdiction to make any other addition/disallowance in view

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

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

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

cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 25,85,740/- in the FY 2009-10 and that the assessee had not filed his return of income. The above clearly connotes sufficient grounds and material before the AO for initiating re-assessment proceedings and this in no way could be termed as 'non-tangible material' or based on rumours/gossip. Further reliance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the\ncross objection of the assessee are allowed

cash deposit; therefore, the same amount was\nadded to the total income of the assessee company treated as unexplained\nmoney as per provision of section 69A of the Act.\n13\nITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred\nan appeal before the Id. CIT(A). Apropos

UMA SHANKER SHARMA,VRINDAVAN, MATHURA vs. ITO, WARD 2, ITO WD TWO, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

cash deposit stand confirmed and the grounds relating to these issues are dismissed. Regarding the other grounds since neither any written submission made either by the appellant or by any authorized representative of it, nor any adjournment letter is furnished by either of them, the remaining grounds need not necessarily be adjudicated and hence dismissed. In the result, the appeal

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

deposited generated out of cash sales. Since the facts in both the cases are\ndifferent, the same are not applicable to the case of the assessee.\n5. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC)\nThis decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is on different set of facts. The Hon'ble\nSupreme Court delivered this decision while dealing with