“Section 142(1)”

Br Associates, Uttarakahand vs. ACIT, Rishikesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. B R Associates Vs Acit Jolly Grant, Circle-1(4)(1) Bhaniyawala, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-248140 Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaqfb6241E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kanwal K.Juneja, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10296/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income At Inr 46,02,250/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Notice Was Issued By Ito, Ward-1(2), Dehradun Thereafter, The Case Was Transferred To Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued & Replies Were Filed By The Assessee. After Considering The Submissions, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 1,93,96,755/- By Making Addition Of Inr 55.00 Lakhs Towards Bogus Advances & Inr 14,13,600/- As Deemed Income & Further Disallowance Of Expenses Of Inr 78,80,905/- Was Made.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Income Tax Officer, Dehradun vs. Rakesh Mohan Verma, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ito Vs Rakesh Mohan Verma Ward-1(1)(3) 144, Neshvilla Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 13 A, Subhhash Road, 248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Abbpvcv4728J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Amit Arora, Ca & Shri Vishal Mishra, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.05.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A) Dehradun/10729/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income 10,94,900/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass With The Issue “Large Cash Deposits Compared To Returned Income”. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 08.08.2018, Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Issued From Time To Time. In Response, The Assessee Filed Replies & Produced All The Information & Supporting Documentary Evidences For Examination. The Ao Vide Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 1,53,25,642/- Wherein Addition Of Inr 69,81,000/- Is Made As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Towards The Bank Deposits & Further Inr 9,60,568/- Added As Unexplained Income Being Difference Between Deposits & Income Declared. Further An Addition Of Inr 62,89,172/- Is Made As One Fourth Payments Against Loan Repayment Of Rs.251,56,689/- Repaid From Undisclosed Sources U/S 69A Of The Act.

ITA No.122/DDN/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

Shree Badshah Yadav Charitable Trust, Mainpuri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(5), Mainpuri

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Badshah Yadav Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust Campus S. K. Scientific Ward -4(2)(5), Public Inter College Karhal, Mainpuri Manipuri Pan : Aaots3631B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017

Jaggo, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Jaggo Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Sh. Indar H. No. 6, Azampur Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura Mathura, Mathura Pan : Ayopj8958J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 17.11.2025 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Assessee Is In This Appeal, Raising Following Grounds : “1. Because In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Information/Explanation Along With The Documents During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Above Notice Was Issued Through Registered E-Mail Id & Fixed For Compliance On 26.02.2021, After Laps Of Considerable Time, The Assessing Officer Issued The Another Notice U/S 274 To The Assessee R.W.S 271(1)B) Of The Act Why Penalty U/S 271 Of The Act Should Not Be Initiated & Levied. In Compliance, The Assessee Not Submitted Any Reply. Accordingly, Assessing Officer Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Hotel Selection Grand, Tadepalligudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.741/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year:2016-17) Hotel Selection Grand Gollagundam Centre K.N. Road Tadepalligudem-534101 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakfh0778C] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 Aayakar Bhavan, 2-1-56/1 Opp. Punjab National Bank K.N.Road, Tadepalligudem – 534101 Andhra Pradesh करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Ravish Sood, Jm: : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca : Sri K.Prasad, Sr.Dr : 12.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 24.10.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short "A.O”) Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 06.01.2025 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: "1. The Notice Under Section 148 Issued On 18.04.20232 For The

failed to file its return of income for the subject year, therefore, the A.O issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 14.02.2024, which, however, was not acted upon by the assessee-firm. Also, another notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 29.10.2024 calling

M. Nagi Reddy Company, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm are partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

scrutiny assessment under section 143(2) of the Act. 2. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 05.09.2019, wherein the assessee firm was called upon to submit certain information relevant for framing of assessment in its case ... response, the assessee firm furnished a part reply. Thereafter, the A.O issued another notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 09.12.2019, wherein he called upon the assessee firm to furnish certain specific details, viz., (i) details of unsecured loans along with the confirmation letters of the parties

M. Nagi Reddy Company, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm are partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

scrutiny assessment under section 143(2) of the Act. 2. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 05.09.2019, wherein the assessee firm was called upon to submit certain information relevant for framing of assessment in its case ... response, the assessee firm furnished a part reply. Thereafter, the A.O issued another notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 09.12.2019, wherein he called upon the assessee firm to furnish certain specific details, viz., (i) details of unsecured loans along with the confirmation letters of the parties

Income Tax Officer, Kakinada vs. Andhra Pradesh United Teachers Federation, Kakinada

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

that adequate opportunity be granted to the assessee to furnish explanations and supporting evidence. The record shows that although the first notice under section 142(1) was issued much earlier, the crucial final notice came during a period when the appellant's office-bearers were engaged in official examination duties ... submissions made earlier under section 142(1) appear to have been disregarded without discussion in the assessment order. (ii) Considering the above and in the interest of justice, I am of the view that the matter requires fresh examination at the level of the AO after granting adequate opportunity

Reddi Paiditalli Naidu, Visakhapatnam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

therefore, the AO proceeded to frame the assessment to the best of his judgment. Also, the notice(s) issued by the AO under section 142(1) of the Act were not responded to by the assessee. 4. The AO, in the course of the assessment proceedings, observed that the assessee