BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

230 results for “reassessment”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,881Mumbai1,542Bangalore508Jaipur501Chennai448Ahmedabad394Kolkata305Hyderabad299Chandigarh230Pune165Indore121Raipur121Amritsar119Surat116Visakhapatnam109Rajkot94Nagpur78Cuttack60Guwahati59Patna52Cochin51Dehradun49Telangana46Lucknow44Ranchi41Agra36Allahabad26Karnataka23Jodhpur21SC11Calcutta8Varanasi6Orissa6Rajasthan5Panaji3Jabalpur2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2J&K1Uttarakhand1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 153A86Section 14875Addition to Income59Section 14749Section 143(3)46Section 6940Section 13237Section 26332Section 153D31Reassessment

SATISH KATOCH,PALAMPUR vs. ITO, PALAMPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 298/CHANDI/2017[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: The A.O. U/S 154 Of The Act Against

For Appellant: None(Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 140ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 210

reassessment done subsequently under Section 147 or Section 153A, interest cannot be charged for the first time if the assessee could, not have anticipated the enhancement of income, even if the assessee had taken due care and diligence. This is clear from the decisions cited supra in the case reported in (2000) 69

Showing 1–20 of 230 · Page 1 of 12

...
21
Unexplained Investment17
Natural Justice13

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 374/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns" 7.12 The ld CIT(A) held that from reading of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that in case, any incriminating material is found during

SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 355/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(36)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is bad in law. 6.3 It was submitted that it is a trite law that incriminating material must be detected as a result of search on the applicant and such incriminating material should be qua the addition proposed to be made against the applicant and in the present case there is no such incriminating material

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 353/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is bad in law. 7.3 It was submitted that it is a trite law that incriminating material must be detected as a result of search on the applicant and such incriminating material should be qua the addition proposed to be made against the applicant and in the present case there is no such incriminating material

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 352/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is bad in law. 7.3 It was submitted that it is a trite law that incriminating material must be detected as a result of search on the applicant and such incriminating material should be qua the addition proposed to be made against the applicant and in the present case there is no such incriminating material

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 354/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is bad in law. 7.3 It was submitted that it is a trite law that incriminating material must be detected as a result of search on the applicant and such incriminating material should be qua the addition proposed to be made against the applicant and in the present case there is no such incriminating material

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 351/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is bad in law. 7.3 It was submitted that it is a trite law that incriminating material must be detected as a result of search on the applicant and such incriminating material should be qua the addition proposed to be made against the applicant and in the present case there is no such incriminating material

SHRI MOHAN LAL GUPTA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 119/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

69,540/-. Subsequently, proceedings under section 147(a) were initiated and notice under section 148 was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee filed his return of income and thereafter, the reassessment

ABHIMANYU GUPTA ,PATIALA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-PATIALA , PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 979/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

reassessment under section 147 is valid, and (iii) whether the addition under section 69 can be sustained on the basis

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 831/CHANDI/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 832/CHANDI/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 238/CHANDI/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 239/CHANDI/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR and Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf

PRATIBHA SINGH,SHIMLA vs. ACIT CIRCLE, CIRCLE SHIMLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 860/CHANDI/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court. The Hon’Ble High Court Upheld The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction Holding That The Assessing Officer Possessed

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aman Singhi, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

reassessment proceedings under section 147 after obtaining statutory approval. 3. The reopening was challenged by the assessee as well as the HUF before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court upheld the validity of assumption of jurisdiction holding that the Assessing Officer possessed material forming “reasons to believe” escapement of income. Thus, the jurisdictional issue stands concluded

M/S SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 308/CHANDI/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

reassessment was completed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) dt. 27/12/2019 at an assessed income of Rs. 2,26,35,818/- by making addition under section 69C towards unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,31,795/- and another addition of Rs. 1,28,09,583/- towards unexplained investment in respect of unaccounted purchases under section 69

M/S SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 307/CHANDI/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

reassessment was completed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) dt. 27/12/2019 at an assessed income of Rs. 2,26,35,818/- by making addition under section 69C towards unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,31,795/- and another addition of Rs. 1,28,09,583/- towards unexplained investment in respect of unaccounted purchases under section 69

M/S SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 309/CHANDI/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

reassessment was completed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) dt. 27/12/2019 at an assessed income of Rs. 2,26,35,818/- by making addition under section 69C towards unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,31,795/- and another addition of Rs. 1,28,09,583/- towards unexplained investment in respect of unaccounted purchases under section 69

M/S SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 310/CHANDI/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

reassessment was completed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) dt. 27/12/2019 at an assessed income of Rs. 2,26,35,818/- by making addition under section 69C towards unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,31,795/- and another addition of Rs. 1,28,09,583/- towards unexplained investment in respect of unaccounted purchases under section 69

SEO BRIDAL STUDIO PVT LTD,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 617/CHANDI/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

reassessment was completed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) dt. 27/12/2019 at an assessed income of Rs. 2,26,35,818/- by making addition under section 69C towards unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,31,795/- and another addition of Rs. 1,28,09,583/- towards unexplained investment in respect of unaccounted purchases under section 69

SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE(3) , LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 618/CHANDI/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

reassessment was completed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) dt. 27/12/2019 at an assessed income of Rs. 2,26,35,818/- by making addition under section 69C towards unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,31,795/- and another addition of Rs. 1,28,09,583/- towards unexplained investment in respect of unaccounted purchases under section 69