“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)

Afsha Shamim Ahmed Khan, Nashik vs. The ITO Ward-1(3), Nashik

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

ITA 2858/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2858/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Afsha Shamim Ahmed Khan, V The Income Tax Officer, 11, Paradise Plaza, Opposite S Ward-1(3), Nashik. Alone Point, Hotel Shingada Talao, Nashik – 422001. Pan: Azmpk3812B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2010-11 Dated 20.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Act, Dated 11.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK

Income Tax Officer WD 6(3), Pune vs. Ellora Ispat, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1988/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1497/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Sagar Construction Company, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA

Ellora Ispat, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1497/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1497/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

West Bengal Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2298/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 West Bengal Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd….……….……Appellant Lb-2, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake City, Kol – 700106.. [Pan: Aaaaw0454H] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(1), Kolkata.…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri I. Banerjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 08, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.10.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 286 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay, Which Is Self-Explanatory. After Going Over The Said Affidavit, We Find That The Delay Was Occurred Due To Unusual Circumstances Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 80P

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Shriram Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

ITA 2043/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2043/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shriram Finance Limited, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of [Since Shriram City Union Finance Income Tax – 3, Limited Amalgamated With Shriram Chennai. Transport Finance Co. Limited & Presently Known As Shriram Finance Limited], Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2022-23 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 4

notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued to the amalgamating company which was followed by notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Thereafter, a draft assessment order was passed in the name of SPIL (amalgamated with MSIL) and final assessment order

ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Formerly Future Soft Private Limited), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 420/CHNY/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 V. The Acit, Capgemini Technology Corporate Circle-1(1), Services India Ltd., Block 3, ‘C’ Wing, 4Th Floor, Chennai. Capgemini Knowledge Park, Airoli Knowledge Park, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400 708. [Pan: Aaacf 0482 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 10A(5)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Smt. Nileshwar Jayanthi Prabhu L/R of Late Sri. Nileshwar Damodar Prabhu, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1697/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Lalbahadur Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Belgaum

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 276/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.274,275 & 276/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16,2017-18 & 2018-19 ) Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Vs I T O, Lalbahadur Credit Souhard National E Assessment . Sahakari Niyamit, Centre, 2471,Lalbahadur Delhi. Akkamahadevi Chowk, Shirguppi Athani, Belagavi-591242, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aagas8466F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. Nos.274

Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Lalbahadur Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, 2471, Lalbahadur Akkamahadevi Chowk, Shirguppi Ath vs. Income Tax Officer, Belgaum

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 275/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Section 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. Nos.274

Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Lalbahadur Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Belgaum

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/PAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Section 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. Nos.274

Jainam Builders, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 638/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.638/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Jainam Builders Rampuria Niwas, Gudhyari, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Aaffj0056L

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Jivrajbhai Gopalbhai Kakadia, Surat vs. Ward 1(3)(2), Surat (Present Jurisdiction-Ward 1(3)(1), Surat)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed statistical purpose

ITA 572/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shulabh Padshah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (SMC) Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18

Saluja Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd., Giridih vs. ACIT, C, Dhanbad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/RAN/2025[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 156

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, र ाँची न्य यपीठ, र ाँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI

Nityanand, Sant Kabir Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Basti

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

ITA 470/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Nityanand V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. & Post Dhamaicha Basti Sant Kabir Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Agzpn3158R (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Vikram Acharya, Aca Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Teacher Employed With The Government Of U.P. & Earned Salary Income. The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.2,16,55,000/- In His Bank Account No.144200101001330 Maintained With Corporation Bank During The Year Under Consideration & The Cash Deposited By The Assessee During The Demonetization Period, I.E. From 01.04.2015 To 31.302.016 Was Rs.15,05,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

total income of Rs.3,01,870/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI of Rs.1,65,000/-. Subsequently, the AO issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee. Since the assessee had not complied with the notices/letter, the AO issued show cause notice under section

Dhirendra Pratap, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Ward-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 467/LKW/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dhirendra Pratap V. The Income Tax Officer A-16/1052, Sector 15 Ward 3(2) Near Vasundhra Complex Hardoi Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ayepp3148C (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 06.11.2018 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,75,750/-. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash To The Tune Of Rs.19,81,000/- In His Bank Account. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued A Query Letter Under Section 133(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On 04.01.2018, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash Deposits Along With Other Evidentiary Proof, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Reply On 07.02.2018. Since

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, no return was filed by the assessee. Thereafter, the AO issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act and proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, treating the cash deposits

Rakesh Kumar, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Barabanki

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 438/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer Naka Paisar Ward 5(5) Deen Dayal Nagar Barabanki Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Awkpk2247F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.11,40,000/- During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account No.752530110000014 Maintained With Bank Of India, Subeha Bazar, Haidergarh. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account. Since There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 68

inviting my attention to paragraph 2, page 2 of the assessment order, submitted that as per order sheet, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 27.11.2017. However, the order sheet is dated 13.03.2018 which is of a later date. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the notice ... under section 142(1) of the Act for the year under consideration was to be issued upto 31.12.2017 but the same has not been issued as is evident from the order sheet entry, which is dated 13.03.2018. The Ld. A.R. has drawn my attention to CBDT Circular F.No.225/363/2017-ITA.II dated

Late Madan Lal Gupta Through Legal Heir Abhishek Gupta, Barabanki vs. ITO Ward 5(4), Barabanki-1, Barabanki

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 437/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Late Madan Lal Gupta V. Ito Through Legal Heir Ward 5(4) Abhishek Gupta Barabanki - 1 367, Qanoon Goyan Nawabganj, Barabanki U.P) Tan/Pan:Acepg5468Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Gaurav Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Retired Assistant Engineer In The U.P. Power Corporation, Drawing Pension. The Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 27.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.4,78,310/- After Claiming A Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A, Amounting To Rs.1,50,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under The Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (Cass) For The Reason Of ‘Cash Deposit During The Demonetization Period’. Accordingly, A Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

dated 21.09.2018 was issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) and duly served upon the assessee electronically. Thereafter, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 05.02.2019 along with a detailed questionnaire was issued, requiring the assessee to furnish bank statements, details of cash deposits, and supporting evidence regarding ... wrongly entered instead of Rs.3,86,000/-, which was immediately reversed by the Post Office staff. Thereafter, another notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 25.04.2019 was issued by the AO, directing the assessee to furnish complete replies to the queries earlier raised. In compliance, the assessee submitted

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Arun Bhandari, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 931/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.931/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Arun Bhandari Patiala बनाम/ Vs. Tax, Patiala 10, Dhillon Marg, Model Town, Patiala, Punjab-147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akupb-0470-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.832/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Arun Bhandari Patiala Acit, Dcit Central Circle बनाम/ Vs. 10, Dhillon Marg, Model Town, Patiala Patiala, Punjab-147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akupb-0470-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rakesh Cajla (Advocate) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07 -01-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Cajla (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR

Section 127Section 129Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Arun Bhandari, Patiala vs. ACIT DCIT Central Circle Patiala, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 832/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Cajla (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR

Section 127Section 129Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND