MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

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

271(1)(c). But the Tribunal held that because the respondent could not produce the parties, it did not follow automatically that an adverse inference should be drawn that the amount represented undisclosed income of the respondent and that the Revenue was not justified in drawing the adverse inference and adding the amounts of the cash credits to the income

SHRI ROHIT YADAV,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Rohit Yadav, The Assistant S/O.Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav, V Commissioner Of Income Village – 2Ml, Nathwali, S Tax, Circle Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar – 335001. Pan: Bbspk6028C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

133(6) of the Act. However, assessee failed to file any reply. The AO after recording reasons, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The AO issued noticed under section 148 on 12.06.2013, which was duly served on assessee on 17.06.2013. The AO has discussed the addition of Rs.16,90,000/- + Rs.518 = Rs.16,90,518/- in paragraph