INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. SATKAR CATERERS PVT. LTD, DURG
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval was obtained from the PCIT instead of the Joint Commissioner, as required by the old Section 151(2). Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made on account of bogus billing. The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment based on information from a search and seizure operation, alleging the assessee availed accommodation entries from a shell company.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings due to improper sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148. Another issue was whether the additions made by the AO were based on sufficient evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C. V. BHADANG & SHRI R. K. PANDA
PER R.K. PANDA, VP:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 26.09.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Bhopal relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income on 05.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs.9,44,260/-. Information was available with the department that the assessee M/s. Satkar Caterers Pvt Ltd.had availed bogus billing accommodation entry through shell company i.e. Silverlake Marketing Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs.1,79,13,000/-. During the course of search and seizure operation carried out against Kolkata based group – Bathwal group and one entry operator Shri Ajit Kumar Jindal it
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 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026