ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI vs. SHRI SUMIT RAMSISARIA, RANCHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

bogus sundry creditors and should not be added to the income of the appellant. Accordingly, it was argued that the impugned addition made by Ld. assessing officer u/s 41(1) of the Act is required to be deleted. [7.1] The findings of the Assessment order, the written & oral submissions and documentary evidence furnished by the AR during the appellate proceedings

RANJIT PRASAD SAHU,BOKARO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HAZARIBAGH

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Ranjit Prasad Sahu, A.C.I.T., Hosir, P.O. Lalpania, Dist.- Hazaribagh. Vs. Bokaro-829149 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Akkpk 9351 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

penalty proceeding under Section 271AAC of the Act was also initiated on the ground that the assessee has failed to give any explanation on the source of cash deposits in response to the notice issued under Section 142(1) and 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section 147 r.w.s

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may be (in addition to tax, if any, payable imposed for a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure.” 11. We note that by way of issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act, as noted above, the assessing officer, during the original assessment proceedings