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)

147 of the Act. Subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued, the assessee field the return however the return was not signed therefore the return was declared invalid and hence notice u/s 143(2) of the Act could not be issued. The AO in the assessment order observed that there was a cash deposit

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

147 of the Act. Subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued, the assessee field the return however the return was not signed therefore the return was declared invalid and hence notice u/s 143(2) of the Act could not be issued. The AO in the assessment order observed that there was a cash deposit

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

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

147—Notice stated that assessee did not disclose this\namount of cash deposit during relevant financial year and, therefore, on\nthat basis, proceedings are required to be initiated—Competent\nauthority proceeded to pass an order for issuance of notice under\nSection 148—Thereafter, a notice under Section 148 has been issued\nto petitioner-assessee—Held, After amendment carried

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)

u/s 147 are initiated on the fallacious assumption that the bank deposits constituted undisclosed income, over-looking the fact that the source of the deposits need not necessarily be the income of the assessee, the proceeding is neither countenanced, nor sustainable in law as held in ITAT, Amritsar Bench in case of Amrik Singh vs. ITO 159/ITD 329 (Amritsar

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)

cash deposits, the Id. AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 after recording reasons and after getting the approval of the competent authority. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.03.2018 and in compliance thereto, the appellant filed return declaring total income of Rs. 83,250/-. Thereupon, the reasons for initiating proceedings u/s 147 were provided to the appellant, vide letter dated 26/6/2018

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)

reassessment proceedings, it was submitted that such cash deposits are accumulation out of cash sales of goods and beside the withdrawals made in cash from time to time. 3 ITA 767/JP/2024 HARISH KUMAR GARG VS ITO, WARD 1(1), ALWAR 5.2.1 Further, with regard to the cash deposited of Rs. 19,01,000/- in saving bank account with axis bank

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

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

cash deposit in her saving bank account during\nthe F.Y. 2012-13. Accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961\ndated 31.03.2021 was issued after prior approval competent higher\nauthority. The assessment order u/s 147 read with section 1448 of the\nI.T. Act 1961 was passed on 26.03.2022 and addition of Rs.6846997/-\nwas made on account of unexplained

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

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

147 of the Act itself is incorrect and notice\nu/s 148 of the Act deserves to be quashed.\n2. Source Fully Explained: At the outset it is submitted that the Assessee has duly and\nfully explained the source of cash deposit of Rs.12,30,000/- made in the bank account\nduring A.Y. 2016-17 with the help of the regularly

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

deposits and actual figures, renders the entire assumption\nof jurisdiction u/s 147 wholly invalid. The reassessment proceedings, being founded on\nsuspicion rather than verified facts, are therefore vitiated ab initio and liable to be\nquashed.\n5.3It is a settled position of law that reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 cannot be\ninitiated on mere suspicion or change of opinion, but must

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

deposits and actual figures, renders the entire assumption\nof jurisdiction u/s 147 wholly invalid. The reassessment proceedings, being founded on\nsuspicion rather than verified facts, are therefore vitiated ab initio and liable to be\nquashed.\n5.3It is a settled position of law that reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 cannot be\ninitiated on mere suspicion or change of opinion, but must

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

deposits and actual figures, renders the entire assumption\nof jurisdiction u/s 147 wholly invalid. The reassessment proceedings, being founded on\nsuspicion rather than verified facts, are therefore vitiated ab initio and liable to be\nquashed.\n5.3It is a settled position of law that reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 cannot be\ninitiated on mere suspicion or change of opinion, but must

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

deposits and actual figures, renders the entire assumption\nof jurisdiction u/s 147 wholly invalid. The reassessment proceedings, being founded on\nsuspicion rather than verified facts, are therefore vitiated ab initio and liable to be\nquashed.\n\n5.3It is a settled position of law that reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 cannot be\ninitiated on mere suspicion or change of opinion, but must

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

SHREE SHYAM BUILDSTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD -1, SIKAR

u/s 147 of the Act and to revise the assessment u/s 263 of the Act, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that unlike power of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the power of Revision u/s 263 of the Act is not contingent on the giving of a notice to show cause and further that Section263 has been understood

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

u/s 148A(d). The assessee submitted reply under letter dated 22.03.2022 which has not been taken on record by the learned AO. Copy of this letter is also available on pager book page No. 17 to 21. During the course of assessment proceedings when asked by the assessee to furnish the details of such cash deposit in bank which

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)

147 and made an addition @ 10% of Total cash deposits amounting to Rs. 21.77,189/-in hands of Appellant. . In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), Ajmer vide order dated 20.08.2019 confirmed the addition made by AO by taxing @ 10% of Total cashdeposits made in bank a/c of Appellant. Thus, the action of AO was upheld by first Appellate Authority

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)

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147, issuing notice u/s. 148 and consequently passing by the AO the relevant assessment order adding an amount of Rs. 26,04,826/- in the total income of assessee. In support of this ground of appeal it is respectfully submitted as under: 1. That as per the assessment order information is available with the department that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 by AO by issuing notice u/s 148 was without\nauthority of law and could not be sustained.\n2. No addition made on the reasons recorded u/s 148: As the ld. AO issued the\nnotice u/s 148 on the reasons recorded as per assessment order that “Information\nhas been received from the IT(Hq) his vide letter No.657 dated