“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)

Samson Maritime Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2258/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Bethel Christian Fellowship Association, Koppal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal

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

ITA 2186/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Veeranna M Murgod, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Netrapal M.S., D.R

Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 69A

ITA No.2186/Bang/2024 Bethel Christian Fellowship Association, Koppal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Bharatbhai Jerambhai Goyani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(6), Surat

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

ITA 1325/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1325/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Bharatbhai Jerambhai Goyani Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ 301, Kedar Kunj Apartment, 1(2)(6), Surat, Room # 303, Vs. Nr. Saraswati School, Honey Income Tax Office, Anavil Park Road, Adajan, Surat-395 Business Centre, Pal-Hazira 009 Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopg 5173 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 37Section 68

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

Lakshmi Narayana Chenna, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.530/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Lakshmi Narayana Chenna Vs. Income Tax Officer Machilipatnam Ward-1 [Pan : Dbaps5532K] Machilipatnam (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.Siva Rama Kumar, Ar (Through Hybrid Hearing) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/03/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 13/03/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], Mumbai, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Running Business Under The Name & Style Of Vara Sidhi Vinayaka Enterprises, Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Mobile Phones & Accessories. The Assessee Has Not Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18. Basing On The Information

For Appellant: Shri K.Siva Rama Kumar, ARFor Respondent: : Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member

Ramakrishna Housingg, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 515/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.515/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Ramakrishna Housingg Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada Ward-2(1) [Pan : Aasfr5923P] Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri B.Srinivasa Rao & Ors. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/03/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 13/03/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.11.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2022-23. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2022-23 On 31.12.2022, Declaring Loss Of Rs.1,28,297/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The 2 Ramakrishna Housingg Assessing Officer (“The Ao”) Issued Notice U/S 142(1) & 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) On Various Dates & Called Upon The Assessee To File Relevant Evidences, In Support Of Return Of Income Filed For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessee Neither Appeared, Nor Filed Any Evidences, Therefore, The Ao Issued Show Cause Notice & Called Upon The Assessee To Explain, As To Why The Assessment Proceedings Shall Not Be Completed In Terms Of Section 144 Of The Act. Once Again, The Assessee Did Not Furnish Any Details As Called For By The Ao. Therefore, The Ao Passed Ex-Parte Best Judgment Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act On 05.03.2024 & Determined Total Income At Rs.61,64,11,609/- By Making Various Additions To The Returned Loss.

For Appellant: Shri B.Srinivasa Rao & OrsFor Respondent: : Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144

Chandra Prakash Jain, Jaipur vs. Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 66/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Joint CIT, Ld

Section 10(38)Section 139(4)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

Rameshwar Chopra, Amer Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 1447/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Mittal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

Wakeel Ahamad, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3), Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 696/LKW/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow13 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr Wakeel Ahamad Income Tax Officer-2(3) V. Sheeshgarh, Meerganj, Bareilly, Aayakar Bhawan, C.R. Uttar Pradesh-243505. Building, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly, (Up)-243001. Pan:Ajcpa9737B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 248Section 249(2)Section 69A

under section 144 of the Act because the assessee failed to comply with the notices under section 148 of the Act and under section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.22,62,000/- deposited in cash in the assessee’s bank account as unexplained

Late Harpal Singh Through His Legal Representative, Nirmal Saini, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(5), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 973/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 272A(1)(d)

visited the assessee with penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) on account of non compliance of the notice issued under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. He imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/- for non compliance of these notices. 4. The impugned order dated 27.09.2022 was challenged

Sant Kumar Suri, Nurpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 336/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

Mismatch in Sales turnover and ; b. Increase in capital during the year. 11. 1. The AO had issued the notice under section 142(1) on 05/07/2017 calling upon various information from the assessee. Thereafter the assessee had filed his reply on 18/07/2017 and furnished various information. At part

Vikram Vasantrao Kale, Ahilyanagar vs. I.T.O Ward-2, Ahilyanagar

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2637/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2636 & 2637/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 Vikram Vasantrao Kale, Ito, Ward – 2, Indira Ice Factory, Vijay Chowk, V/S Ahilyanagar Zenda, Shrigonda, Dist; Ahilyanagar-413701 Maharashtra Pan-Arlpk1168K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 144Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "एस एम सी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr

Vikram Vasantrao Kale, Ahilyanagar vs. I.T.O Ward-2, Ahilyanagar

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2636/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 144Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "एस एम सी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr

Palani Gurumurthy, Chennai vs. Non- Corporate Ward - 17(6), Chennai

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

ITA 2952/CHNY/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2952/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Palani Gurumurthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 10A, Park Lane Paper Mills Road, Non Corporate Ward 17(6), Perambur, Chennai 600 011. Chennai. [Pan:Aihpg8291J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 81 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

assessee’s ICICI bank account No. 603801505936. The Assessing Officer sought for explanation from the assessee vide notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3 I.T.A. No.2952/Chny/24 [“Act” in short]. According to the Assessing Officer, no return of income filed by the assessee for the year ... income. However, no return of income filed in response to the said notice under section 148 of the Act. Again, notice under section 142(1) of the Act seeking details regarding the cash deposits as found in the assessee’s bank account, however, there was no response from the assessee

Graceunited Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2049/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, C.A. & Vaishali More, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE

Graceunited Developes Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12(2)(1), Mumba

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2048/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, C.A. & Vaishali More, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE

Teras Steels Private Limited (Earlier Known As M/S. Accil Steels Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 3816/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraanil Mahajan Vs. Acit C/O. Kapil Goel, Adv, F- Circle 63(1) 26/124, Secdtor-7, Rohini New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abapm0133D Appellant Respondent Anil Mahajan Vs. Acit 10872, Jhandewalan, Nabi Circle 63(1) Karim, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abapm0133D Appellant Respondent

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

1 ITA No. 3816 & 7611/Del/2019 ANIL MAHAJAN VS. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW

Mahalingeshwar Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Belagavi

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 17/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 16 &17/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21 & A.Y.2018-19) Mahalingeshwar Co-Operative Ito-Ward-1(4), Vs Credit Society Ltd, Civil Hospital Road, . Diggewadi,Taluka Raibag, Belagavi-590001. Belagavi-591201, Karnataka. Karnataka. . Pan .No.Aaaam1904G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Shivanand Halbhavi.Ar Revenue By Shri.Manikandan.Sr.Dr

Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Mahalingeshwar Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Belagavi

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 16/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Komar Bedu Gouda, Karwar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 267/PAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.267/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Komar Bedu Gouda, Vs National Faceless At Balerashi,Po.Amadalli, Assessment Centre, . Karwar-581301, Delhi- Uttara Kannada, . Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aoopg3843F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Bansal Pathways (Damoh-Katni) Pvt Ltd, Hoshangabad Road vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax -1(1), Bhopal, Hoshangabad Road

ITA 455/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Indore12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 37

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI