RAJENDRA SAHU,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,, KATNI

ITA 162/JAB/2023Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 November 2025AY 2013-1410 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the same investment was already assessed in the hands of Sh. Amarnath Pyasi for both AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14, and an appeal against this was pending. It ruled that the investment could not be assessed in both the benamidar's and the alleged beneficial owner's hands simultaneously. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to consider both assessment orders together and make a final decision, thus allowing the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rajendra Sahu, was found to have purchased an immovable property for Rs. 1,18,95,000/- in the name of his employee, Sh. Amarnath Pyasi, who earned a meager salary. An investigation concluded Pyasi was a benamidar, and the Assessing Officer added Rs. 88,52,740/- as unexplained investment under section 69 to the assessee's income, treating him as the beneficial owner. The assessee contested this, arguing the income was already assessed in the benamidar's hands and natural justice was violated.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings were valid; whether the addition for unexplained investment under section 69 was sustainable when the same income was also assessed in the benamidar's hands; and whether principles of natural justice were violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 69,Section 131,Section 115 BBE,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR

Before: SH. KUL BHARAT & SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Respondent: DR 1
Hearing: 17.09.2025Pronounced: 28.11.2025

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 20.10.2023 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act on 27.03.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “(1) The order passed by the Ld CIT (A) is bad in law and facts, void ab initio and without juri iction. (2) The Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the order, when notice issued u/s 148 is defective. There is no application of mind of Ld AO and also of sanctioning authority. (3) The Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the order, whe

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →