ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. 22. A bare perusal of the above provision would reveal that before issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening of assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee

NISHA RANI,C/O SAHAY ENTERPRISES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN,

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumarnisha Rani, I.T.O., Bedi Market, At Road, Ward-1(2), Vs. Guwahati-781001 (Assam) Guwahati. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afjpr 7852 P Assessee By : Shri Vishesh Surana, Fca. Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

bogus purchases by the assessee. 2 Nisha Rani Vs ITO 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of ₹ 45,50,680/-. The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on 21/03/2024 after passing order

RISHI AGARWAL,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

142(1) was issued on 29.11.2022 against which the appellant submitted his reply on 07.12.2022 explaining the fact that party with name as “Vinod” neither appears in the Sales Register nor in the Purchase register of the appellant. Further there is no transaction in the bank also with the said party. This signifies beyond any doubt that the appellant never

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA vs. SHRI SATYAJIT SAHA, AGARTALA

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

bogus sundry creditor on finding that the learned AO had worked out the figure of closing sundry creditor by mistakenly calculating purchase value at a lesser value by Rs 5,32.05.857/- from the details provided by Custom Stations. 5. For that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in arbitrarily rejecting the books of account and estimating business income

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. VINOD BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA (HUF), DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. USHA BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. MEENAKSHI BAMALWA SONI, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. BHAGWATI DEVII BAMALWA , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. VISHAL BAMALWA , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. VINAY BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. RAVI BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. MADAN LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. SHEETAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter