“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)

Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, Navsari

In the result, both appeal of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 965/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.965/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, बनाम/ 48, Paradi, Balak Valsad, Navsari, Room No.206, Income Vs. Navsari-396 475 Tax Officer, Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Navsari, Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel बनाम/ Room No.206, Income Tax Officer, 48, Paradi, Arak Valsad, Vs. Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Navsari-396 475 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Na vs. Ari, Navsarivs.Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Navsari

In the result, both appeal of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 830/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Prathama Constructions, Lucknow vs. ITO-2(2), Lucknow-New, Lucknow

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

ITA 144/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Prathama Constructions V. The Ito-2(2) F-120, Ganj Plaza Lucknow 42, Masjid Lane Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aakfp8300L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 04 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

assessee had also claimed depreciation amounting to Rs.45,86,296/-. The assessee, ITA No.144/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 5 vide notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) was requested to furnish the documentary evidence in support of details of construction Work- in-Progress

Income Tax Officer, Barabanki vs. Sateesh Kumar, Barabanki

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sateesh Kumar, Barabanki, U.P. H. No.9, Bhitariya, Ramsanehighat, H/O Baneekodar, Barabanki, U.P. Pan:Ctjpk3341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 13.03.2004 Partly Allowing The Appeal Of The Assesseee Against The Assessment Made Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 24.09.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under:- “1. Because On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts While Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 77,96,530/- Under Section 69A Of The I.T Act 1961 By Suo-Moto Taking The Bank Deposits As Turnover & Estimating The Profit @ 8% Of Rs. 95,83,320/- Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Has Not Furnished Complete Details Of Bank Deposits, The Same Is Added To The Total Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The I.T. Act. 1961. 2. That The Order Of Cit (A), Being Erroneous In Law & In Facts Be Cancelled & The Order Of The Ao Be Restored. 3. Any Other Grounds Arose During The Proceedings Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

held that, as the assessee had failed to furnish the income tax return in response to his notices under section 142(1) and to furnish details regarding his income, the provisions of section 144(1)(b) were being invoked to complete the proceedings as a best judgment assessment, after affording

Kaushik D Bhagat (Patel), Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 241/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI T. R SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH BEFORE: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI T. R SENTHIL

Malpur Taluka Primary Teachers Sahkari Sakh & Grahak Sahkari Mandli, Malpur vs. The ACIT., Himatnagar Circle, Himatnagar

ITA 820/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R. &For Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant

Mohammad Abrar Choudhary, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-8, Pune

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

ITA 1464/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1464/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mohammad Abrar Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Choudhary, Gat No.692, Kudalwadi Road, Chikhali, Pune- 411062. Pan : Aghpc3905D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-11 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Ground 1. The Learned Cit(A), Pune 11 Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,79,97,380/- Made By The Learned Ao To The Taxable Income Of The Appellant. Ex-Parte Order- Principal Of Natural Justice

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Sweta Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

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

ITA 2105/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2105/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sweta Agarwal,……………..…………...…………Appellant Room No. 8, 7, Raj Mohan Street, Kolkata-700073, West Bengal [Pan:Aiypa9816E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-1(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Tarak Nath Jaiswal, A.R. & Shri Ashay Singiska, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271A(1)(d)

demonetization period. Accordingly, system generated notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 09.08.2018 was issued to the assessee. Further notice under section 142(1) dated 29.1.2019 was issued online to the assesese requiring it to furnish certain details/documents relating to this case. However, no compliance was made ... cash deposit of Rs.22,26,000/- in the Bank accounts of the assessee during demonetization period i.e. 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016, notice under section 142(1) dated 29.01.2019 along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee. But the assessee did not make any compliance. The ld. Assessing Officer treated this amount

K 629 Merkupathy Primary Agricultural Co Op Credit Society, Tirupur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) Tirupur, Tirupur

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

ITA 575/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.575/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 K 629 Merkupathy Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Co-Op. Credit Society, Ward 1(2), Abishekarapuram, Kunnathur, Tirupur. Tirupur 638 103. [Pan:Aabak6176B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Ground No. 1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Involving Only Issue As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273Section 273B

Assessing Officer stated that during the course of assessment proceedings, notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 29.06.2021 and notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated 08.11.2021 & 25.11.2021 have been issued by the Assessing Officer. According to the Assessing Officer, the said 3 notices were served ... compliance. Admittedly, there was no response to the statutory notices issued under section 143(2) of the Act and the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Para 2 of the penalty order clearly shows that one notice under section 143(2) of the Act and 2 notices

Mr. Anguraju Sengottuvelan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1, Salem

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

ITA 567/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.567/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Anguraju Sengottuvelan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, Maruthi Vilas, North Street, Ward 1(3), High School Road, Velur, Salem. Namakkal 638 182. [Pan:Aysps6739A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 210 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

short], but no 3 I.T.A. No.567/Chny/25 compliance was made by the assessee in filing the return of income. Further, notice under section 142(1) of the Act, show-cause notice and draft assessment order under section 144 of the Act were also issued and served on the assessee. According

Viswanathan Jayakumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw4(5), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1844/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Dharshan Bothra, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. Telekom Malaysia Behard, Malaysia

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2432/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Manju Prasad, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9

section 143(2) of the Act wherein reasons for initiating the reassessment proceedings were furnished and another notice dated 18 February 2021 under section 142(1) of the Act wherein certain information and documents were sought. The Company filed objections dated 26 February 2021 in response to the notice issued ... disposed vide order dated 4 March 2021. Thereafter, the Company complied with the terms of the notice dated 18 February 2021 issued under section 142(1) of the Act by providing submissions dated 29 May 2021 and 24 August 2021. Subsequently, a show cause notice ("SCN") was issued dated

Sri. Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Private Limited., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result Ground no 9 to 14 are allowed and ld AO is directed to delete the addition of undisclosed closing stock

ITA 1062/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar &

Section 132Section 153ASection 250

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

Samir Narain Bhojwani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 260/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

return filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned dividend income of Rs.15,40,235/- on units of mutual funds, which

Maria Estibeiro, Panaji vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

The appeal stands ALLOWED

ITA 34/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Maria Estibeiro L/H Of Jacintodas Estibeiro 781, St. Marys Colony, Miramar, Goa. Pan:Aabpe2798N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal Captioned Appellant Impugns Din & Order No. 1060336601(1) Dt. 31/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012- 13 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)

parte reassessment order; Legal heirs challenged validity of reassessment notice, reassessment order; High Court observes that legal heirs received the notice under section 142(1) but no fresh valid notice u/s 148 was issued to them; High Court further observes that the notice to the deceased Assessee is invalid from

Income Tax Officer, Panaji vs. Anil Raghuvir Sirsat, Parra Bardez

ITA 289/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 289/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Panaji. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253(2)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

P P Corporation, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

response, the assessee submitted before the learned PCIT that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act and in response to that notice, assessee had submitted name, address, PAN number and copy of the ledger account of the lenders from the assessee ... genuine, and therefore did not make any addition. We find that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued to notices under section 142(1) of the Act, to conduct sufficient Enquiry, in our view, the order can be erroneous if the Assessing Officer fails to apply the law rightly

M/S. Sarju Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Morbi-363641 vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

ITA 83/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 68o

M/s.Sarju Vitrified P Ltd. ITA No.83/RJT/2023 (AY: 2018-19) 2 1. The order u/s. 263 of the Act is bad

Pioneer Education Society, Haryana vs. ITO, Patna

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

ITA 405/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 405/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Pioneer Education Society,……….…….....……Appellant C-310/311, Unitech Business Zone Nirvana Country, South City-Ii, Sector-50, Haryana, Pin Code No.122018 [Pan:Aadap0174C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-1(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Yatin Sharma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee but there was no compliance by the assessee. Further notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire, digitally signed, was issued to the assessee, but no compliance was made by the assessee to the above statutory notices. Again, notice ... under section 142(1) was issued and getting no compliance from the side of assessee, penalty notice under section 271(1)(b) was issued to the assessee on 30.11.2018 requiring compliance on 05.12.2018. Again, letter under section 133(6) was issued to the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Valachery Branch, Chennai

Anup Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Patna

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

ITA 401/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 401/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Anup Kumar,……………..………….…….....……Appellant Sultanpur, Danapur, Patna-801503, Bihar [Pan:Cdupk6764J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-6(4), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act, which was not served upon the assessee. Notices under section 142(1) was issued but there was no evidence that the notices were served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer passed the order under section