LALTANPUIA CHAWGHLUT,AIZAWL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: The Itat Dated 15.09.2025 As Under:

deposited huge cash in his bank account for both the years and did not file his return of income u/s 139 of the Act. Accordingly, after following the due procedure for making reassessment as per the provision of section 147

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings is liable to be quashed. 2. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act and making addition of Rs. 1,68,71,990.00 in as much as the income of the appellant is exempt u/s 10(26) of the Act. 3. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings is liable to be quashed. 2. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act and making addition of Rs. 1,68,71,990.00 in as much as the income of the appellant is exempt u/s 10(26) of the Act. 3. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI vs. FORTUNE VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

147 of the Act in relation to the same sale proceeds received in the bank account. And pursuant to the re-opening, in the reassessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) dated 24-12-2018, the AO’s predecessor had recorded a categorical finding that the receipts pertained to sale of investments which had been verified by him. There

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. PAWAN CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

reassessment is that there is no need to resort to Section 147 of the I. T. Act and to consider the disallowance in the assessment to be made under section 153 of the I.T. Act? 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in misinterpreting the CBDT's Circular

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. PAWAN CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

reassessment is that there is no need to resort to Section 147 of the I. T. Act and to consider the disallowance in the assessment to be made under section 153 of the I.T. Act? 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in misinterpreting the CBDT's Circular

SUMAIYA ENTERPRISE,BARPETA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer, Nor Any Return Of Income Was Filed. Thereafter, The Ld. Assessing Officer Proceeded To Add Rs. 1,15,71,000/- Under Section 69A & 69C Of The Act.

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 1,15,71,000/- u/s 69C & 69A of I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of whole amount of cash deposits

SUMAIYA ENTERPRISE,BARPETA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer, Nor Any Return Of Income Was Filed. Thereafter, The Ld. Assessing Officer Proceeded To Add Rs. 1,15,71,000/- Under Section 69A & 69C Of The Act.

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 1,15,71,000/- u/s 69C & 69A of I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of whole amount of cash deposits

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND vs. IMKUMMONGLA PONGEN, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act since the notice was never served upon the assessee personally. It is stated that the assessee is from the Scheduled Tribe of Nagaland and is exempt from Income Tax as per section 10(26) of the Act. The assessee is an agriculturist having paddy field and timber plantation in Longsa village under Mokokchung

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- JORHAT, JORHAT vs. M/S. TOOR FINANCE COMPANY LTD,, JORHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

147, whether the ld. Assessing Officer cannot make any addition on any other ground unless some addition is made on the ground of which reassessment had been initiated. In other two grounds, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the additions on merit also and the Revenue is challenging the finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. Brief facts

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Share capital) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of dying of cloth on job-work basis - It filed return declaring certain taxable income Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment under section 143(3) - Subsequently, Investigation Wing of Department supplied a list of paper companies which

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAS OFFICER

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

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Share capital) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of dying of cloth on job-work basis - It filed return declaring certain taxable income Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment under section 143(3) - Subsequently, Investigation Wing of Department supplied a list of paper companies which

AMPLEX PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGARTALA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE SILCHAR, SILCHAR

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

147 148 has to be saved, otherwise the revenue would be left without remedy (Para 11) If the submission on behalf of the revenue that in case of search even where mu incriminating material is found during the course of search even in case of unabated completed assessment, the Assessing Officer can assess or reassess the income total income taking

RAJULHOUBIENUO ANGAMI,NAGALAND vs. ITO WARD 2, DIMAPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: This Hon'Ble Tribunal Assailing The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. Cit(A)"]. That The Due Date For Filing The Appeal Was 24Th August, 2024. However, There Has Been An Unintentional Delay Of 166 Days (Upto 13Th February, 2025), In Filing The Present Appeal, For Which The Appellant, With Utmost Humility, Seeks The Indulgence Of This Hon'Ble Tribunal For Condonation Of The Said Delay On The Grounds Set Forth Herein. 2. It Is Submitted That The Mr. Shivendu Maharaj Is The Accountant Of The Appellant Who Looks After The Tax Portal & Email Updates. The Accountant Also Forwards The Needful To The Chartered Accountant, Mr. Ajit Jain, To Take Necessary Action In Response To Any Notice That Is Received.

reassessment proceedings negatory and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned reopening notice under section 148 I.T.A. No. 26/GTY/2025 Rajulhoubienuo Angami as well as the consequential proceedings under section 147 of the Act must be quashed. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned addition of INR 77.99,220 made under section

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings initiated by the department were bad in law as no notice u/s.148A and subsequent order passed u/s148(d) were served on your appellant. Further, copies of satisfaction note and sanction from higher authority was also not provided to your appellant before issuing notice u/s. 148. The notice u/s. 148 was issued by JAO and not by NFAC

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings initiated by the department were bad in law as no notice u/s.148A and subsequent order passed u/s148(d) were served on your appellant. Further, copies of satisfaction note and sanction from higher authority was also not provided to your appellant before issuing notice u/s. 148. The notice u/s. 148 was issued by JAO and not by NFAC

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

deposits in bank account. CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating

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

deposits in bank account. CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating