ASHOK SINGH ,IMLI PHATAK vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and\nin this regard the action of the learned AO in the assessment order is upheld.\n(xiii) The appellant has also made a contention that no incriminating material was\nfound in the search and as such the assessing authority did not have jurisdiction\nto make additions in the assessment order under

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, 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: Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT “Decision The facts of the case are considered. There

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, 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: Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT “Decision The facts of the case are considered. There

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, 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: Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT “Decision The facts of the case are considered. There

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, 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: Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT “Decision The facts of the case are considered. There

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, 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: Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT “Decision The facts of the case are considered. There

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, 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: Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT “Decision The facts of the case are considered. There

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment. The above information is as per NMS data/details under "P-Z category". Therefore, the case of the assessee company for A.Y. 2013-14 was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 with prior approval of Ld. Pr.CIT for reassessment

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act & assessee earned interest of Rs.1,08,000/- on such advances for which addition is made. When the addition challenged before the ld. CIT(A) he has vide para 4.2 held that from the PAN and aadhar card of Shri Narayan Goyal it is found that he is son of Daulat Ram Goyal

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act & assessee earned interest of Rs.1,08,000/- on such advances for which addition is made. When the addition challenged before the ld. CIT(A) he has vide para 4.2 held that from the PAN and aadhar card of Shri Narayan Goyal it is found that he is son of Daulat Ram Goyal

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act & assessee earned interest of Rs.1,08,000/- on such advances for which addition is made. When the addition challenged before the ld. CIT(A) he has vide para 4.2 held that from the PAN and aadhar card of Shri Narayan Goyal it is found that he is son of Daulat Ram Goyal

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act & assessee earned interest of Rs.1,08,000/- on such advances for which addition is made. When the addition challenged before the ld. CIT(A) he has vide para 4.2 held that from the PAN and aadhar card of Shri Narayan Goyal it is found that he is son of Daulat Ram Goyal

RANJIT THAKUR ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment for purchase of bonds. 10 Ranjit Thakur During the year the assessee has purchased RBI Bond 9.95% PA RET on 24.02.2011 for a sum of Rs 5,00,000/-. The payment was directly made by Smt. Renu Agarwal on behalf of the assessee. A copy of confirmation of Smt. Renu Agarwal is also available on paper book page

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

unexplained\nor not. Having not done so now that finding is against the set of facts\nalready accepted by the revenue.\n\nAs regards the contention of the revenue that the assessee is having\ntwo PAN but we note from the order of the PBPT wherein the date of birth\nreferred were different as is evident from the following table

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

unexplained investment in advances\non the basis of Pg 57 of Exhibit 4 of AS-1 by not accepting the explanation that it\nis a memorandum noting without name, the source of giving such advance is out\nof the cash available as per the cash book and the amount is received back by\nholding that the explanation of assessee

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

unexplained investment in advances\non the basis of Pg 57 of Exhibit 4 of AS-1 by not accepting the explanation that it\nis a memorandum noting without name, the source of giving such advance is out\nof the cash available as per the cash book and the amount is received back by\nholding that the explanation of assessee

MILESTONE DEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

unexplained investment of stock as per provisions contained in section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE. 6 Milestone Dewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 4. Aggrieved from the said action of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below

SUNIL KUMAR GATTANI,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 7

unexplained investment - Assessee challenged assessment order on ground\nthat no notice under section 143(2) was issued to assessee before passing\nassessment order - Tribunal set aside assessment order on ground that issue of\nnotice under section 143(2) in reassessment

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Thus the ld. AO made the entire cash deposit without seeing the withdrawals and nature of transactions. Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. Hence this appeal SUBMISSIONS: 1. Notice without jurisdiction: 1.1 At the very outsetit is submitted that the applicantassessee was/isan NRI. The assessee was residing at Japan from 24-25 years