← All Phrases

“Section 143(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(2)17,209 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(2) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(2)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

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. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

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.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such 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. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Judgments citing Section 143(2)

Kasiviswanathan Medical Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. DCIT, Corproate Circle-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1989/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.: 1989/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kasiviswanathan Medical The Deputy Commissioner Of Agencies Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax, Kuvarpalayam Road, Corporate Circle – 1, East Veli Street, Madurai. Madurai – 625 009. [Pan: Aafck-4486-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाईकी तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CA
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

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

Ishares Core Msci Total International Stock Etf (As A Successor to Ishare Core Taotal International Stock Mauritius Company ), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6774/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

total income of Rs. 237,52,93,55,610. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that

Ishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor to Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Tp) 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6051/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

total income of Rs. 237,52,93,55,610. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that

Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6050/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

total income of Rs. 237,52,93,55,610. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that

Avance Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 5 of the appeal is

ITA 5420/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Avance Technologies Limited Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), 209, Kapadia Chambers, 599 Jss Vs Mumbai 8Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400002. [Pan: Aaeca5763B] M.K. Road, Mumba I- 400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Yardley Investment and Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4725/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year : 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1), Room No.653, 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Yardley Investment & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. 1, Pearl Mansion N, 91, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 ……………. Respondent Pan: Aaacy0327M

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68

return of income on 09.11.2019, declaring a total income of Rs.6,19,520/-. Thus, the time period for issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act had already expired on the date of search, and no assessment proceedings were pending for the year under consideration on the date

M/S Sapphire Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 595/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarm/S. Sapphire Fintech Private Limited 6Th Floor-1, Plot 165, 161/169 Hirachand Fulchand Trust Building, Perin Nariman Street, Fort, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aahcs0312H V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3(3)(1), ……………… Respondent Room No.609, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Mumbai – 400020

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

declaring a total income of Rs. 22,860/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has claimed deduction

M/S Sapphire Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 594/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

declaring a total loss of Rs.7,97,080/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. From the perusal of the balance sheet of the assessee, it was observed that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1563/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “बी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1562/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “बी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1451/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “बी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1450/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “बी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Ndw Development Corporation LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3817/MUM/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2022-23 Income Tax Officer-20(2)(1), Ndw Development Corporation 304, Piramal Chambers, Llp, Parel, Vs. B 201-202, Doodh Wala Complex, Mumbai-400012. Chsl, Belashis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008. Pan : Aapfn4779C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Inder Solanki, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Inder Solanki, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 694Section 69A

Officer in the assessment order and the remand report. It was submitted that the assessee repeatedly failed to comply with notices issued under Sections 143(2), 142(1), and 144, thereby denying the AO any opportunity to examine the alleged unsecured loans and repayments. It was submitted that upon detailed

Chintan Harshad Kanakia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 2822/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhsmt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Chintan Harshad Kanakia, Ito Ward 42 (1)(1) Room No. 103, Sacovar Apt., Sagar Complex, 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Saibaba Nagar, Borivali (W), Bkc, Mumbai -400051 Mumbai Pan – Agnpk6023E

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

notice under Section 148 dated 29.07.2022 the assessee filed his return of income on 13.08.2022. 3. The Assessing Officer after serving notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) proceeded for reassessment. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish brief note on business activities, computation of income, profit

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

Dharam Chand Agarwal, Kanpur (Uttar Pardesh) vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur- I

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

ITA 358/LKW/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Dharam Chand Agarwal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 14/75 D Gopal Vihar Civil Lines, Kanpur-I, U.P. Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Aanpa1942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kanpur-1 On 31.03.2024 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Pcit Has Set Aside The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 28.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B For The A.Y. 2016-17 & Directing Him To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Dated 28.03.2022, Which Has Been Set Aside U/S 263 Of The Act By The Impugned Order Passed By Pr. Cit, Itself Was Illegal & Was Not Enforceable Due To Various Infirmities In The Initiation & Conclusion Of Re-Assessment Proceedings, The Same Could Not Have Been Subjected To Revision U/S 263 Of The Act & Consequently The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & Wholly Without Jurisdiction. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Nfac U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & In Setting Aside The Same By Exercising His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

assessee responds to the notice under section 148 and files a return of income and the ld. AO subsequently issued notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) to conduct an assessment, then there is no infirmity in his decision to pass an order to conclude such proceedings, even

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