SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings cannot be resorted to only to examine the facts of a case, no matter how desirable that be, unless there is a reason to believe, rather than suspect, that an income has escaped assessment. Thus, just to reopen the assessment, based on the cash deposits

ITO, PHALODI vs. VARSHA MILLS, KHICHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleito Varsha Mills, Khichan Phalodi E-51, Industrial Estate, Khichan, Phalodi, Jodhpur – 342308 Pan No.: Aaifv 9450 D Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate (Virtual) Smt. Runi Pal – Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 07.02.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein Decision Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 69A On Account Of Un-Explained Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & By Invoking Provisions Of Section 145(3) Of The Act.

deposited in the bank account has already been recorded in the books of accounts as cash sales in respect of which the appellant submitted the sale bills, delivery challans, sale register and stock register before A.O. When the sum has been credited in the books of accounts maintained by the appellant, the A.O. cannot resort to making addition

M/S. RASIK PRIYA RESORTS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Jodh/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., V Of Income Tax, 11, Mangal Complex, S. Central Circle-2, Udaipur. Saifan Choraha, Bedla Road, Udaipur. Pan: Aafcr 5546 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Rakesh Lodha – Ca Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

deposited by the company and claimed as share application money from Mr.Mangilal Gurjar and Mr.Naresh Trivedi. During the hearing, specific question M/s.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. Ltd.,[A] was asked to ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) regarding Return of Income filed by Mr.Mangilal Gurjar and Mr.Naresh Trivedi. The ld.AR explained that Mr.Mangilal Gurjar and Mr.Naresh Trivedi had not maintained any books of accounts

M/S. RASIK PRIYA RESORTS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Jodh/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., V Of Income Tax, 11, Mangal Complex, S. Central Circle-2, Udaipur. Saifan Choraha, Bedla Road, Udaipur. Pan: Aafcr 5546 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Rakesh Lodha – Ca Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

deposited by the company and claimed as share application money from Mr.Mangilal Gurjar and Mr.Naresh Trivedi. During the hearing, specific question M/s.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. Ltd.,[A] was asked to ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) regarding Return of Income filed by Mr.Mangilal Gurjar and Mr.Naresh Trivedi. The ld.AR explained that Mr.Mangilal Gurjar and Mr.Naresh Trivedi had not maintained any books of accounts

LOKESH GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

deposited cash amounting to Rs. 7.70 lakhs, coupled with the fact that there was no regular return on record, the ACIT- 2, Jodhpur, initiated and no notice u/s 148 has been issued by him, which makes the reassessment

LOKESH GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

deposited cash amounting to Rs. 7.70 lakhs, coupled with the fact that there was no regular return on record, the ACIT- 2, Jodhpur, initiated and no notice u/s 148 has been issued by him, which makes the reassessment

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

cash deposits but finding that Ld. COIT had already granted registration u/s 254/ 12AA(1)(b) on 26.12.2018 (PB 49), assessed the income at nil vide order dated nil (PB 45-49). Accordingly, the department did not proceed further in any of these matters and they attained finality. All these admitted facts were available on record, when the AO passed

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000 + Business income of Rs. 16,77,283 + Receipt of Rs. 23,401\nu/s 194C). Accordingly, a notice under section 148 dated 08.03.2018 was issued in the name of\nnon-existent firm and not properly served thereon. The said reassessment

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000 + Business income of Rs. 16,77,283 + Receipt of Rs. 23,401\nu/s 194C). Accordingly, a notice under section 148 dated 08.03.2018 was issued in the name of\nnon-existent firm and not properly served thereon. The said reassessment

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000 + Business income of Rs. 16,77,283 + Receipt of Rs. 23,401\nu/s 194C). Accordingly, a notice under section 148 dated 08.03.2018 was issued in the name of\nnon-existent firm and not properly served thereon. The said reassessment

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000 + Business income of Rs. 16,77,283 + Receipt of Rs. 23,401\nu/s 194C). Accordingly, a notice under section 148 dated 08.03.2018 was issued in the name of\nnon-existent firm and not properly served thereon. The said reassessment

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000 + Business income of Rs. 16,77,283 + Receipt of Rs. 23,401\nu/s 194C). Accordingly, a notice under section 148 dated 08.03.2018 was issued in the name of\nnon-existent firm and not properly served thereon. The said reassessment

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

deposited the cash of\nRs.15,59,000/- in these bank accounts, this affidavit has also been remained uncontroverted. It is\nsettled law that the contents of an affidavit should be read correct and full unless not\ncontroverted.\n8.1 To support his arguments the Ld. AR for the assessee has also drawn our attention to the\njudgments of Hon'ble Supreme

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

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

deposited the cash of\nRs.15,59,000/- in these bank accounts, this affidavit has also been remained uncontroverted. It is\nsettled law that the contents of an affidavit should be read correct and full unless not\ncontroverted.\n8.1 To support his arguments the Ld. AR for the assessee has also drawn our attention to the\njudgments of Hon'ble Supreme

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

cash and out of\nbooks of account. In this support he referred some ledger A/c in the assessment\norder vide pages 22 to 27and made summary at page 28 of the assessment order.\nHe also stated that during the course of assessment the registries of the flats sold\nduring the year were obtained and payment details have been verified from

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

cash deposit during demonetization period." 5. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.2 The grounds of the appeal taken by the revenue in appeal No. 169/Jodh/2022 reads as follows

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

cash deposit during demonetization period." 5. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.2 The grounds of the appeal taken by the revenue in appeal No. 169/Jodh/2022 reads as follows

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

cash deposit during demonetization period." 5. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.2 The grounds of the appeal taken by the revenue in appeal No. 169/Jodh/2022 reads as follows