“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)

Income Tax Officer, Ranchi, Jharkhand vs. Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi, Jharkhand

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.61/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito, Ranchi………..…………….…….…...................................……….……Appellant Vs. Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd ……....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 21, Ashok Bhawan, Kali Asthan Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand. [Pan: Aadca7460J] Appearances By: Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 15.01.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act & Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Special Smokeless Coal/Coke. The Assessee Also Derives Income By Way Of Interest On Bank Deposits. As Per Information Available With The Income-Tax Department, It Was Noticed That The Assessee’S Bank Accounts Reflected Substantial Cash Deposits, Which Were Allegedly Withdrawn Immediately Through Rtgs/Neft Transactions. It Was Further Observed That There Existed A Difference Between The Turnover Disclosed By The Assessee In The Return Of Income & The Total Credits Appearing In The Bank Accounts. On The Basis Of The Above Information, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Initiated Reassessment Proceedings By Issuing A Notice Under Section 148 Of The

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 273B

completed by order dated 14.10.2015, determining total income at ₹6,84,600/-. During the reassessment proceedings, the AO issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act on 30.06.2021 and again on 22.02.2022, calling upon the assessee to furnish various details. According to the AO, the assessee did not comply

Naveen Singh, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.413/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Naveen Singh………...…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M-9 Old, Adityapur Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Adkps4229A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. S. Paul, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017–18 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹43,99,340/- Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Accepting The Income As Declared. Subsequently, The Ao Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act After Recording Reasons & Obtaining Sanction From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Notice Under Section 148. Thereafter, Multiple Notices Under Section 142(1) Were Issued, Including Final Opportunity Notices, Which Were Duly Served But Remained Unanswered.

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

reasons and obtaining sanction from the competent authority. The assessee did not respond to the notice under section 148. Thereafter, multiple notices under section 142(1) were issued, including final opportunity notices, which were duly served but remained unanswered. I.T.A. No.413/Ran/2024 Naveen Singh Even notices served physically through notice server

M/S Anjeneye Ispat Ltd., Saraikela vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 74/RAN/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.74/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand – 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur……....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21.08.2018 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Manufacturing Of Pig Iron. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹1,41,05,250, Which Was Processed Under Section 143(1). During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Had Received Share Capital & Share Premium Aggregating To ₹3,00,00,000 During The Relevant Previous Year. The Assessing Officer Issued Notices Under Sections 142(1) & 148 Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Complete Details Of The Share Applicants, Including Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions. In Response, The Assessee Furnished Complete Details In Respect Of The Share Capital/Share Premium Received From The Following Parties:

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 68

received share capital and share premium aggregating to ₹3,00,00,000 during the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 142(1) and 148 requiring the assessee to furnish complete details of the share applicants, including identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. In response

Chaman Lal, Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandi

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

ITA 489/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: the National Faceless Appeals Centre-Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) and the appeal is dismissed and stated that in the absence of any document/ evidence, no separate reasons needs to be recorded by the appellate authority for affirming the order of A.O. and decided that "It is evident that the appellant during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings failed to furnish documentary evidences/ proper explanation in support of his contention, so in view of aforesaid facts hence the

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kumar, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

proceedings under section 147 were initiated and notice under section 148 dated 28.03.2021 was issued, which remained uncomplied with. Subsequently, several notices under section 142(1) were issued seeking details regarding the source of cash deposits, cash flow statement, and books of account; however, the assessee did not respond

Income Tax Offier, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana vs. Balpreet Singh, Ludhiana

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

ITA 1022/CHANDI/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026

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

For Appellant: Shri Balpreet Singh, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 251Section 69A

Unit on 11.11.2021. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer as well as the FAU issued several statutory notices under section 142(1) and a show-cause notice under section 144 through electronic mode as well as by speed post. However, the assessee remained completely non-compliant ... complete non-compliance by the assessee despite issuance of notice under section 148 and several statutory notices under section 142(1) and section 144. The Assessing Officer, on the basis of bank information obtained under section 133(6), treated bank credits of Rs. 33,07,37,215/- as unexplained

Shah Mahendrakumar Mafatlal (HUF), Mithkhali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1689/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1688 & 1689/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) बनाम/ Shah Mahendrakumar Income Tax Officer Mafatlal Huf Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. 27D, Maharashtra Society, Ahmedabad Anmol Mithkhali Owners Asso Mithkhali, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaihs8263H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Sulabh Padshah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. Dr 16/12/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 06/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Shah Mahendrakumar Mafatlal (HUF), Mithkhali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1688/AHD/2025[ 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Shri Swami Vivekanand Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Pandharpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 Pandharpur, Pandharpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1406/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

traceable to the provisions of the IT Act that mandate the filing of a return such assection 139(1), section 139(4), section 142(1) or section 148, and since in the case of the assessee herein, theclaim was made in a return filed beyond the due date for filing ... were admittedly filed after the dates prescribed under sections139(1) and 139(4) or in the notices issuedunder section 142(1) and section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before thecompletion

Sanjeevkumar Umakanth Khyade, Bidar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bidar

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

ITA 1746/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms. Sahana T.H.M., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147

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

Jap Overseas Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, 10 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7228/MUM/2025[2010 - 11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethjap Overseas Private Vs. Ito Ward, 10(2)(1) Limited Room No. 573, Aayakar Bhawan, B-102, Twinkle Maharishi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Apartments, New Link Mumbai-400020. Road, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan/Gir No: Aaacj1573C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Ketan Harilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commssioner of Income Tax - 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing

ITA 6689/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

submitted that, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee duly complied with the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, and a copy of the reply dated 09/10/2017 was furnished before the Ld. AO. Subsequently, another reply dated 13/10/2017 was also filed before

Jewelex India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee

ITA 5284/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 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

Jewelex India Priavte Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee

ITA 5283/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

Murtuza Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 4080/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Otwani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 48Section 49Section 50CSection 54

under section 148 of the Act on 14.02.2023. In due course, notice under section 143(2) was issued and thereafter notices under section 142(1) were issued along with questionnaire to furnish specific information. In response to aforesaid notices assessee submitted written reply along with a sale-deed of immovable

Thiruvananthapuram Road Development Company Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT - 6, Mumbai

ITA 2778/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

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

section 263 read with Explanation 2 thereto. 3. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the AO had issued notice under section 142(1) dated 12 February 2022 specifically calling for details relating to the addition of intangible assets and their valuation. The assessee furnished a detailed reply dated ... have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is evident that although the AO issued notice under section 142(1) calling for details of intangible assets, there is no discussion or finding in the assessment order on the critical issue of allowability of depreciation, particularly

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Varanasi vs. Prominent Datamatics Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

notice under Section 143(2) on 14th August, 2018 fixing compliance on or before 6th September, 2018 another notice under Section 142(1) was issued on 25th July, 2019, 3rd October, 2019 but there is no compliance of these notices. Thereafter, notice under Section 142(1) dated 25th July

Rajat Kumar Gupta, Ramanujganj, Balrampur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 737/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 736 & 737/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rajat Kumar Gupta, V Income Tax Officer-1, Near Power House Road, S Kharsiya Marg, Tatapani, Ramanujganj, S.O., Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Surguja- 497220, C.G. Ambikapur-497335, C.G. Pan: Bpfpg5887N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) . . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Since Facts, Grounds & Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together For Adjudication By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

Ambikapur response to the notices issued under section 148 of the Act nor he responded to any notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) had not any option except to complete assessments of relevant years ex parte. Since the assessee, during

Rajat Kumar Gupta, Surguja, Ambikapur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 736/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

Pari Anil Gandhi, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 897/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 896 & 897/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Pari Anil Gandhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), C-702 Sadguru Vatika, Airport Road, 2- Aayakar Bhavan Race Course Ring Maruti Nagar, Rajkot - 360001 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bahpg7804E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 10 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026 आदेश/Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 22/11/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T. Act, On Dated 28/03/2022. 2. Since, The Issues Involved All These Appeals Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Are Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take The Lead Case In Ita No.896/Rjt/2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. Ita No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 154Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

ITA No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Pari Anil Gandhi, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(1) Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 896/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 154Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

ITA No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN