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.

416 results for “reassessment”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai531Delhi416Ahmedabad267Jaipur171Chennai137Pune123Bangalore122Hyderabad106Kolkata74Chandigarh72Surat69Rajkot68Visakhapatnam63Amritsar61Agra57Indore56Patna54Raipur45Cochin28Nagpur27Lucknow24Cuttack16Guwahati14Allahabad13Jodhpur10Dehradun8Panaji5Varanasi3Ranchi3Jabalpur2SC1Rajasthan1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Addition to Income84Section 153A80Section 14764Section 153C63Section 6862Section 69A58Section 14841Disallowance36Section 153D35Reassessment

DELHI, DELHI vs. SMA GOYAL JEWELLERS PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5583/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Sma Goyal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-29, I-45, Arya Samaj Road, New Delhi. Vs. Uttam Nagar, West Delhi-110059. Pan:Aajcs4890G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjeev Batra, Adv. & Shri Kailash Khemani, Ca Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 In Appeal No. 08/10437/2019-20 Dated 25.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arising Out Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 23.10.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.4,35,580/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.98,00,000/- In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) In Kotak Mahindra Bank Account. During The Course Of The Assessment Proceedings, Details Have Been Asked For Time To Time & The Assessing Officer Has Issued Summons To The Parties To Whom Sales Stated To Have Been Made In Cash. Since, Most Of The Parties Has Not Responded To The Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer, He Was Of The Opinion That Cash Deposited During

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for A.Y. 2017-18. The Ld. CIT(A) vide appellate order dated 25.09.2024, deleted the entire addition of Rs. 78,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A

Showing 1–20 of 416 · Page 1 of 21

...
30
Unexplained Investment30
Bogus Purchases28

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2459/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

Section 132Section 153ASection 156Section 69Section 69A

reassess the total income. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reaching the conclusion that the assessment is time barred as the demand notice was served after the assessment order whereas as per section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the demand notice is always consequential to the assessment order and has been served within reasonable period

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2458/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

Section 132Section 153ASection 156Section 69Section 69A

reassess the total income. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reaching the conclusion that the assessment is time barred as the demand notice was served after the assessment order whereas as per section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the demand notice is always consequential to the assessment order and has been served within reasonable period

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2457/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

Section 132Section 153ASection 156Section 69Section 69A

reassess the total income. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reaching the conclusion that the assessment is time barred as the demand notice was served after the assessment order whereas as per section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the demand notice is always consequential to the assessment order and has been served within reasonable period

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

69A on account of unexplained money, amounting to Rs.59,18,00,000/- (amount received from 636 investors of AMR customers) and further initiated up penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein the assessee has challenged the proceedings initiated by issue of notice

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

69A on account of unexplained money, amounting to Rs.59,18,00,000/- (amount received from 636 investors of AMR customers) and further initiated up penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein the assessee has challenged the proceedings initiated by issue of notice

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

69A on account of unexplained money, amounting to Rs.59,18,00,000/- (amount received from 636 investors of AMR customers) and further initiated up penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein the assessee has challenged the proceedings initiated by issue of notice

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

69A on account of unexplained money, amounting to Rs.59,18,00,000/- (amount received from 636 investors of AMR customers) and further initiated up penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein the assessee has challenged the proceedings initiated by issue of notice

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2893/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings. It was contended that in terms of section 143(2) of the Act, notice under the said section should have been issued and served upon the assessee within a period of 6 months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished, that is, on or before 30.09.2013. However, the notice was issued

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2894/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings. It was contended that in terms of section 143(2) of the Act, notice under the said section should have been issued and served upon the assessee within a period of 6 months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished, that is, on or before 30.09.2013. However, the notice was issued

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3953/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings. It was contended that in terms of section 143(2) of the Act, notice under the said section should have been issued and served upon the assessee within a period of 6 months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished, that is, on or before 30.09.2013. However, the notice was issued

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3955/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings. It was contended that in terms of section 143(2) of the Act, notice under the said section should have been issued and served upon the assessee within a period of 6 months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished, that is, on or before 30.09.2013. However, the notice was issued

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3952/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings. It was contended that in terms of section 143(2) of the Act, notice under the said section should have been issued and served upon the assessee within a period of 6 months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished, that is, on or before 30.09.2013. However, the notice was issued

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2892/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings. It was contended that in terms of section 143(2) of the Act, notice under the said section should have been issued and served upon the assessee within a period of 6 months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished, that is, on or before 30.09.2013. However, the notice was issued

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3951/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings. It was contended that in terms of section 143(2) of the Act, notice under the said section should have been issued and served upon the assessee within a period of 6 months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished, that is, on or before 30.09.2013. However, the notice was issued

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3954/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings. It was contended that in terms of section 143(2) of the Act, notice under the said section should have been issued and served upon the assessee within a period of 6 months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished, that is, on or before 30.09.2013. However, the notice was issued

ACIT, CC- 26, , NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3956/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

reassessment proceedings. It was contended that in terms of section 143(2) of the Act, notice under the said section should have been issued and served upon the assessee within a period of 6 months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished, that is, on or before 30.09.2013. However, the notice was issued

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1345/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

69A of the Act which are applicable only if and if, any undisclosed moveable asset e.g. money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article is found (physically at the time of search) in a financial year. Thus, the said section is not applicable in respect of any book entry or information about any income in any year which was not found

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1346/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

69A of the Act which are applicable only if and if, any undisclosed moveable asset e.g. money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article is found (physically at the time of search) in a financial year. Thus, the said section is not applicable in respect of any book entry or information about any income in any year which was not found

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1343/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

69A of the Act which are applicable only if and if, any undisclosed moveable asset e.g. money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article is found (physically at the time of search) in a financial year. Thus, the said section is not applicable in respect of any book entry or information about any income in any year which was not found