CHANDRASHEKHAR RAUT,WARDHA vs. ITO WARD-2, WARDHA, WARDHA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions regarding discrepancies in cash deposit figures, which directly impacted the additions. Therefore, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a stamp vendor, appealed against additions made to his income as business income and unexplained money. The assessment was passed as a best judgment assessment. The assessee pointed out arithmetical mistakes and discrepancies in cash deposit figures in the assessment order.
What were the issues?
Whether the notice under Section 148A(b) was invalid due to insufficient time for reply, and whether the additions for unexplained business income and unexplained money were correctly confirmed despite discrepancies in cash deposit figures.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148A(b),Section 144,Section 147,Section 69A,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH,
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM :
This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 13.02.2026 which is arising out of the Assessment Order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the IT Act dated 13.03.2023. 2
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the learned Assessing Officer and the entire consequential proceeding is invalid, inasmuch as the learned Assessing Officer has provided the appellant
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 148A(b)
- Venkata Durga Agencies, Kakinada vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, KakinadaITA 692/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S Mittal Alloy Castings Co., Raigarh vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), BilaspurITA 685/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Khubchandani, Raipur vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), RaipurITA 437/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Farman Sk, Malda vs I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), MaldaITA 3001/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Pramila Satyanarayan Bhandari, Surat vs DCIT, Circle-1(3), SuratITA 22/SRT/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026