ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

69A of the Act. Probably, an addition under section 68 of the Act could have been considered; but then

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 69A of the Act) and finally made the addition in the order in respect of unexplained cash credits u/s 68

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 69A of the Act) and finally made the addition in the order in respect of unexplained cash credits u/s 68

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B\n& 69C is not apparent from the impugned order. Merely stating that excess\ncash

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

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case

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

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case

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

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case

LAL CHAND CHOUDHARY,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelal Chand Choudhary Acit/ Dcit, Circle, S-8, Transport Nagar, Barmer Jaisalmer - 345001 Pan No. Aaopc 6671 K Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

69A and 43,34,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has summarily rejected 5 Asst. Year: 2017-18 the submissions of the assessee by observing that the sales registers and debtors realization submitted lack corroborative evidence providing cash receipt from customers and that the VAT records are however while acknowledging the VAT receipts but these

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the act and and added to the income of the assessee. In addition to the cash-credits, the AO has further made addition of Rs. 8,56,000/- u/s 69A

SHRI BHANWAR LAL,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the Act. However, additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough

SUSHIL KUMAR JHABAK,BIKANER vs. NFAC, DELHI / ITO,WARD-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ao With All Supporting Evidence But Ld. Ao Ignored While Relevant Facts So The Addition Made By Ao For Treating The Cash Deposit Rs. 5,50,000/- Unexplained & Charged Tax At A Special Rate Which Was Not Ought To So It Is Deserve To Be Deleted. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Erred In Charging Interest U/S 234B & 234C. 3.The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Additional Or Alternative Ground Sat Or Before The Hearing.”

section 69A. Addition u/s 69A can be made only when such money is not recoded in the books of accounts and not offered satisfactory reply. When the assessing officer has not doubted the genuineness of purchases or opening stock, and has not rejected the books of accounts u/s 145(3), then the assessing officer cannot deny the source

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

section he has\nmade the lump-sum addition either u/s 68 or 69 or 69A or trading or u/s 56 i.e.\nother

CHANDAN SINGH,POKRAN vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 69A of the Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) NFAC grossly erred in representing erroneous and irrelevant finding in the order and thereby sustaining arbitrary addition in a hypothetical Chandan Singh vs. ITO way by putting the assessee to erroneous harassment and inconvenience. 8. That the petitioner

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

section 69A cannot be invoked. The reasoning given by the AO and Ld. CIT (A) is vague and based on surmise as to what a prudent person should have done. Once assessee has explained that being of senior citizen they have maintained such liquidity of cash out of their own disclosed income with them for certain contingencies, then without

RITU ROAD LINES,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-02, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.34/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ritu Road Lines, The Dcit, Plot No.12-14, Nakoda V Central Circle-2, Jodhpur. Industrial Area, Basni, S Jodhpur – 342001. Pan: Aaafr9440D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/11/2023

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D. Therefore, we uphold Assessing Officer’s action of invoking provisions of section

DR. MANISH CHHAPARWAL ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

68 to 69D, also needs to be understood in the same manner, as attempt to evade tax/penalty/ interest etc. In view of the above facts, the contention of the appellant is not found acceptable and the unexplained cash has been rightly taxed by the AO u/s 115BBE of the Act.” 7. The Ld. Council has reiterated the submissions made before

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 69A unless ownership is first established. Accordingly, the addition made is without proper foundation and deserves to be deleted. In support of the above contentions the reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents:  Mangilal Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2007] 163 Taxman 399 (Rajasthan)  Sukhdayal Rambilas v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 414 (Bom).  Salek Chand

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,920/- 2018-19 Rs. 1,29,46,152/- Rs. 4,61,80,190/- 2019-20 Rs. 12,04,359/- Rs. 42,96,065/- Total Investment (In Rs.) Rs. 2,51,44,716/- Rs. 8,96,93,660/- 3.1 For the year under consideration the ld. DVO estimated the value at Rs. 4,61,80,190/- and in the books