← All Phrases

“Section 142(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 142Section 142(1)15,051 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 142(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 142(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

Judgments citing Section 142(1)

M/S. Global Tech Park Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2319/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Global Tech Park Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2318/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Global Tech Park Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2317/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Global Tech Park Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2316/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Global Tech Park Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2315/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Sujan Gopal Mukherji, Mumbai vs. Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4149/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

return of income on 26/08/2022, declaring a total income of INR 4 31,11,540. Subsequently, statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. 6. During the reassessment proceedings, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee

Abm Knowledgeware Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 3460/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT

Pashupati Capital Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 2985/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

discussion about the issue identified by ld. Pr. CIT while exercising his jurisdiction under section 263. However, on perusal of notices under section 142(1) dated 8.06.2022, we find that assessing officer sought explanation on various issues including on the deduction under section 80G along with supporting documents. The assessee

Haresh Nagindas Mehta, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(1)(7), Mumbai

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

ITA 2947/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2012-13 Haresh Nagindas Mehta, The Income Tax Officer, B/6, Samadhan Bldg, Ward-26(1)(7), L.T. Road, Mulund (E), Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400081. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aabpm4028K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Neha Paranjpe For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 28-02-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Assessee Has Moved A Prayer For Admission Of The Following Additional Grounds Of Appeal: “Reopening Is Bad In Law: 1. The Reassessment Proceedings Initiated By The Ao & The Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Same Are Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL

Manju Rakesh Jain, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2280/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Rahul Shrikrishna Dharap, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2132/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Rahul Shrikrishna Dharap Ito Ward 22(3)(1) Piramal Chambers, 00, Wardoli, Panvel, Mumbai-400020. Wavarle B.O, Panvel, Vs. Raigarh-410206. (Pan: Airpd2580P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Yash Agrawal, Ca Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Yash Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Anandbabu Arumugham Nainar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6398/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Anandbabu Arumugham Nainar Deputy Commissioner Of V 9, Swasraya, K D Desai Road, Income Tax, Mumbai S Vileparle(W), Mumbai - 400056 . (Pan : Afnpn9655A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri M. E. Joe, Advocate Revenue : Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri M. E. Joe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

The Naval Dockyard Co Op Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 4281/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanthe Naval Dockyard Co- Vs. Dcit Circle1(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Op Bank Limited Mumbai-400 020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Road Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No. Aabat7232R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jayesh Kala, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Capital Limited (Successor to Tata Cleantech Capital Limited), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3456/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Baljeet (Legal Heir of Late Sh. Dhanraj), Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Gurugram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5706/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Ishwar Chand Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 1(3), New Cgo Complex

ITA 2844/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraishwar Chand Aggarwal Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3) 3D-29, Nit Faridabad Nh-4, Nit, Haryana – 121001 Faridabad, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpa5364Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Jitender Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Section 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2021 was issued to the assessee and claimed to have been served upon him. Statutory notice under Section 142(1) dated 23.12.2021 was issued directing the details to be provided in respect to the reasons recorded in reopening of assessment followed by reminders dated

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Smt. Krushnaba P. Jadeja, Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 577/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Smt. Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 572/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360 001 (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.577/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Vs. Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja, C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360001 (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr : 03/06/2025 : 30/07/2025 Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Rajkot, Which In Turn Arise, Out Of A Common Assessment Order, Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Vide Order Dated 17.02.2015.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Shankar Lal Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(1), Jpr, Jaipur

ITA 537/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Komal Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks

Mohd. Naushad Ansari (Prop. Gulsan Sev Foods), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 620/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Mohd Naushad Ansari The Ito, Ward-5(3)(3) Prop: Gulsan Sev Foods Vs. Anandnagar Road 51, Pujara Ni Chali Ahmedabad. Nr.Sarangpur Bridge Kamdar Medan – Gomtipur Ahmedabad 380 021 Pan: Aiwpa 6480 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Confirming The Addition Of Rs.28,54,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made In The Bank Accounts Of The Assessee During The Demonetisation Period. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(3), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019. 2. Facts Of The Case 2

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

under section 143(2) was issued on 22.09.2018 and served upon the assessee. During the course of the assessment proceedings, various notices under section 142(1) were issued on 14.08.2019, 09.11.2019, and 15.11.2019, calling for specific details as mentioned in para 5 of the order. The assessee, in response, submitted ... furnished the cash book, bank book, purchase and sale register, purchase ledger, and certain confirmations, in compliance with the various notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The AR submitted that despite such documentary record being placed on file, the Assessing Officer concluded 4 that the assessee