BANSI LAL KUMHAR,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

68 on account of cash deposited in\nthe bank account during the year as unexplained money which has been\nconfirmed by the Ld. NFAC/CIT (A). The Ld. AO and CIT(A) both have not\nconsidered the vital facts and material available on record in true perspective\nand sense and thus, the addition so made by the Id. AO and confirmed

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

unexplained credits and may not be added to his total income as per Provisions of Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016 has submitted as under: - o"kZ ds nkSjku fy;k x;k Unsecured Loans dh jkf'k 22]00]000 :- Fkh tks fd lHkh

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

unexplained credits and may not be added to his total income as per Provisions of Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016 has submitted as under: - o"kZ ds nkSjku fy;k x;k Unsecured Loans dh jkf'k 22]00]000 :- Fkh tks fd lHkh

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 282A, the AO has not authenticated the\nassessment order and notices issued u/s 143(2)/142(1) by printing or stamping his name\nand office. Therefore, the order passed, without authentication is null and void.\n6. Most of the order of CIT (A) is not legible and void.\nIt is, therefore, requested please to delete the addition and quash

SITA DEVI CHOUDHARY,AHORE JALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALORE

In the result, stands allowed

Bench: The Cit(A) Challenging The Additions Made By The Ao. The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld Both The Additions Made By Observing-

unexplained and making addition u/s 68 is unwarranted. 21 Sita Devi Choudhary, Jalore The provisions of Section 68 of the Act suggest that if there is any sum credited in books of account maintained for the any previous year, then the assessee is required to offer proper and reasonable explanation regarding nature and sources of such credit to the satisfaction

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

unexplained cash credit. The addition so sustained may kindly be deleted. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition made by Ld. AO for Rs. 1,17,900/-presuming that such payment was made by assessee. The addition so sustained may kindly be deleted. 4. The appellant

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

unexplained cash credit. The addition so sustained may kindly be deleted. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition made by Ld. AO for Rs. 1,17,900/-presuming that such payment was made by assessee. The addition so sustained may kindly be deleted. 4. The appellant

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

unexplained, the AO is required to consider the overall facts of the case. In the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT, [1995] 214 ITR 001/80 Taxman 89, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :- "…….But, in view of section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year

BADAMI DEVI ,BARMER vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blebadami Devi Income Tax Officer, M/S Sbl & Co Llp Ward No. -1 Barmer. (Chartered Accountant) E-75, Kalpatru Shopping Center, Opp. Bioscope Cinemas, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan–342003. Pan No. Aaopd1969R Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A) Panaji, [Hereinafter Referred To As The Jcit (A)] Dated 28.06.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 68 of IT Act, 1961 by treating the aforesaid amount as unexplained money received from four persons/ loan creditors

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAILEELA SYNTHETICS PVT. LD. , BHILWARA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.279/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit- Bhilwara Circle M/S. Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara 147, New Cloth Market Rajasthan. Pur Road, Bhilwara Vs. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs-1103-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

unexplained." 3.6 As per the provision of section 68 of the Act where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

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

Unexplained money, etc.- Where in any financial year, the assessee is\nfound to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article and such\nmoney, bullion, jewelry or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any,\nmaintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about\nthe nature

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

money actually belonged to none but the assessee himself—Action of the AO appears to be based on mere suspicion—Addition under s. 68 was not therefore sustainable. 4.5 Also kindly refer CIT vs Shree Barkha Synthetics 182 CTR 175 (Raj.), CIT v. Orissa Credit Corp. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC), Sarogi Credit Corp. v. CIT 103 ITR 344 (Patna

LIFE CARE HOSPITAL,SIROHI vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 was not applicable.  [2024] 158 taxmann.com 655(Chandigarh-Trib.) [23.01.2024] Where during course of survey, assessee surrendered excess stock, cash and receivables and offered same to tax as business income, however, AO treated said surrendered amount as unexplained investment under sections 69 and 69A, since it emerged that source of income of assessee was from its business operations, income

DWARKA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved with the additions in the assessment, the assessee filed appeal before the Id. CIT(A) who has granted major relief to the assessee by observing and finding the contention of the assessee as correct that ICICI bank A/c No. 016705008298 was opened on 04.08.2009 and the mismatch entries were from

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

section 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

RANJEET SHARMA,RAWATSAR vs. ITO, WARD NOHAR,, HANUMANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961, where any sum is explanation offered by him is not satisfactory in the opinion of A.O., the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In the instant case, the AO after appellant's failure in establishing that the bank deposits were

MANJU GOYAL,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

unexplained money being undisclosed asset found during the course of search, which is contrary to the facts on record. It is noted that the date of search conducted on the assessee was on 23.08.2016, and amendment came into force w.e.f. 15.12.2016 wherein it was not mentioned that the section 115BBE of the Act, was applicable retrospectively. Thus, the assessee

DINESH BOHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO,W-1, BARMER, BARMER, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledinesh Bohra Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Unit 517, Option Primo, Andheri Tax-1, Jodhpur. East, Mumbai-400093 Pan No. Aanpb4468Q Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, C.A. & Shri Mayank Taparia, Advocate. Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar (Cit- D.R.) Date Of Hearing 20.02.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025.

section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act on 20.04.2021 determining the assessee's total income at Rs. 1,25,68,514/- by making an addition on account of disallowance of agriculture income of Rs.58,79,649/-. 4.1 The assessment order for the year under consideration was picked up for proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act by the PCIT