THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

69D of the IT Act and as such, in the light of non-\ndisputed fact that unexplained credit whether found in the bank statement of the\nassessee, who regularly maintain books of accounts. Ld. ITAT should have agreed to legal-\nplea of the Revenue that till onus with respect to identity, credit worthiness and\ngenuineness is discharged, the unexplained credit

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

69D are necessarily attracted whenever unexplained credits are found by the assessing officer and quarry is raised on the assessee. The assessee is thereafter liable to discharge the onus of explaining Identity, creditworthiness of depositor and genuineness of transaction. In the case of the assessee, such onus has not been satisfied, except for category B cases, reopened years

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

69D are necessarily attracted whenever\nunexplained credits are found by the assessing officer and quarry is raised on the assessee. The\nassessee is thereafter liable to discharge the onus of explaining Identity, creditworthiness of\ndepositor and genuineness of transaction. In the case of the assessee, such onus has not been\nsatisfied, except for category B cases, reopened years

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

69D are necessarily attracted whenever\nunexplained credits are found by the assessing officer and quarry is raised on the assessee. The\nassessee is thereafter liable to discharge the onus of explaining Identity, creditworthiness of\ndepositor and genuineness of transaction. In the case of the assessee, such onus has not been\nsatisfied, except for category B cases, reopened years

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act.\n2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and some of the\nassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act').The main ground of appeal by\nthe department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions\nmade on account

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

69D are necessarily attracted whenever\nunexplained credits are found by the assessing officer and quarry is raised on the assessee. The\nassessee is thereafter liable to discharge the onus of explaining Identity, creditworthiness of\ndepositor and genuineness of transaction. In the case of the assessee, such onus has not been\nsatisfied, except for category B cases, reopened years

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

69D are necessarily attracted whenever\nunexplained credits are found by the assessing officer and quarry is raised on the assessee. The\nassessee is thereafter liable to discharge the onus of explaining Identity, creditworthiness of\ndepositor and genuineness of transaction. In the case of the assessee, such onus has not been\nsatisfied, except for category B cases, reopened years

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and some of the\nassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act').The main ground of appeal by\nthe department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions\nmade on account

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms\nof which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on\nassessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for\nreopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act.\n2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

69D are necessarily attracted whenever\nunexplained credits are found by the assessing officer and quarry is raised on the assessee. The\nassessee is thereafter liable to discharge the onus of explaining Identity, creditworthiness of\ndepositor and genuineness of transaction. In the case of the assessee, such onus has not been\nsatisfied, except for category B cases, reopened years