“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)

Simran Motors Pvt.Ltd, Panvel vs. DCIT Circle, Panvel

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

ITA 1071/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh Doshi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

Maithan Ceramic Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 1944/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 269S

paper book which is a copy of the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 30.04.2013, which reads as follows :- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PAN: AABCM7759A Office of the Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-VI, Kolkata Dated: 30.04.2013 To M/s Maithan

Shri Vasantrai Pursotam Kachalia, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 811/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.811/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 बनाम/ Vasantrai Pursotam Ito Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot Vs Kachalia (Original - Ito Ward 2(1)(5), Rajkot) 210-Shrinathji Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Road, Canal Road, Rajkot. Rajkot 360001 Rajkot 360002, Gujarat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adspk1354Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोट"ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Murubhai Hardasbhai Vasara, Porbandar vs. ITO WD 2 (4), Porbandar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 554/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 554/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2017-18) Murubhai Hardasbhai Vasara Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Porbandar-360550 17, Main Bazar, Village Rana बनाम /Vs. Kandorna, Ranavav, Porbandar- 360 550 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adqpv 9119 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Tejwani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL

Dhruti Jaysukhbhai Ranpariya, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-2 (6) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 536/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dhruti Jaysukhbhai Ranpariya Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), बनाम/ Dhareshwar Appartment 56, Jamnagar, Aaykar Bhawan, 4Th Digvijay Plot, Floor, Manek Center, Nehru Road, Vs. Jamnagar (Guj) -361005 Jamnagar (Guj) -361006 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aqkpr6633C : (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Akshar Jewellers, Junagadh vs. Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/RJT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 270A

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

Vallbhbhai Nebhabhai Gojiya, at.Bankodi, Tal.Jamkalyanpur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 286/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 286/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Vallabhbhai Nebhabhai Gojiya, Vs. The Cit(A), Bankodi, Jam Kalyanpur, National Faceless Appeal Centre Dist: Devbhoomi, Dwarka-361315 (Nfac), Delhi – 110003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajgpg9688P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

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

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

Valour Autopack, Gor Khijadiya, Morbi Gujarat vs. The Pr. CIT 1 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269S

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Narendra Singh Bisht, Gomtinagar vs. ACIT- 1, Lucknow-New, Lucknow

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

ITA 63/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.63/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Narendra Singh Bisht V. Acit-1, Lucknow New 123, Khargapur, Gomtinagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Malesemau, Uttar Pradesh- Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226010. Pan:Aljpb0987D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Ashwani Jaiswal, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04 11 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 12 2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 282Section 68

following grounds of appeal: - “1. Because the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in non-complying the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, as the notices issued were never served on the appellant, the Assessing Officer was not justified in framing the assessment ex-parte ... being bad in law, the same be set aside. Page 2 of 6 2. Because there being no service of notice issued under section 142(1) by the Assessing Officer on the assessee as per the provisions of section 282 as alleged in the assessment order, the I assessment framed

Faizul Haque, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

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

ITA 55/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parnav Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, लखनऊ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW श्री कुल भारत, उपाध्यक्ष

Mrs. Ranjana, Mrizapur vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 505/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs Ranjana V. The Assessing Officer Village Dewapur Pachwal Nafc Post Rajapur, Aamghat Mirzapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoxpr7130M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, 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 31.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Valued At Rs.60,00,000/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, The Assessee Neither Responded To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Nor Filed Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

there was no response from the side of the assessee to the notices issued by the AO. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 142(1)/144 of the Act to the assessee, requiring the assessee to furnish the copy of registered sale deed in respect of purchase transactions

Harnek Singh, Shahjahanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 492/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Harnek Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Jaswant Nagar Shahjahanpur Narotha Hansram Shahjahanpur Tan/Pan:Hdgps6958R (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, 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 18.03.2025, 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 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 Totaling To Rs.10,56,500/- In His Following Bank Accounts During The Demonetization Period (9.11.2016 To 30.12.2016):

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

Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 69A

invoked. There was no response from the assessee. The AO, thereafter, called for the details from the assessee, vide questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act dated 19.09.2019, in response to which the assessee filed reply, stating therein that the assessee was a farmer and whole of the income

Nitin Dwivedi, Hardoi vs. CIT(A), Hardoi

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

ITA 362/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Nitin Dwivedi V. The Ito – 3(3) Avas Vikas Colony Hardoi Prahladpuri, Hardoi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ajfpd9057Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

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

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

income of Rs.2,72,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) fixing the date for compliance on 13.11.2019. The assessee submitted his reply

Shamkant Keshav Kotkar (Prop. Nandan Builders), Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1358/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 26Section 263Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFOREDR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT

Abhiruchi Marketing P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 934/KOL/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abhiruchi Marketing P. Ltd. C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Ito, Ward 7(1) Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Floor, Suite Chowringhee Square, Fifth Floor, Vs. No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca1408B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manas Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, DR

Section 131Section 132(6)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM Abhiruchi

Dipankar Dutta, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 54(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2300/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2300/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Dipankar Dutta,…………………….………...……Appellant 115, Sita Nath Bose Bye Lane, Salkia, Howrah-711106, W.B. [Pan:Acypd1204F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-54(1), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, Central Revenue Building, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

dated 26.03.2021 after obtaining approval from the competent authority to assess the above transaction. The assessee did not make compliance. Thereafter notices under section 142(1) on different dates were issued to the assessee along with questionnaire but the assessee did not make compliance with the notices issued. Thereafter assessment ... pleaded that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee to substantiate his claim. Despite being given multiple opportunities via notices issued under section 142(1) during assessment proceedings and under section 250 of the Act during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to provide verifiable and independent documentary evidence

Rajkumari Dhanuka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 32(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2260/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2260/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Rajkumari Dhanuka,…………….………….…Appellant 113, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 [Pan:Adupd7020N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-32(2), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

ITA No. 2260/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Rajkumari Dhanuka IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru

Rainbow Vanijya Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Ashok Prasad Gupta, North Dinajpur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Raiganj

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1848/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1848/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Ashok Prasad Gupta,………………………….…Appellant C/O. Daspara C.S. Shop, Daspara B.O., Chopra, North Dinajpur-733207, W.B. [Pan:Bfepg3955G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-2(4), Raiganj, Income Tax Office, Karnajora, Rajganj-733130, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 270A(1)

issue of cash deposits. Statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 27.09.2018. Subsequently notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee on 27.04.2019. From the 2 Ashok Prasad Gupta record, it is seen

Sri Vishnu Vilas Souharda Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Ballari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Ballari

ITA 1515/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

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