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

ASSAM VALLEY FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,GUWAHATI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Assam Valley Finance & Dcit, Circle 1 Investment Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, House No.1, Niligiri Path, G.S Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Zoo Road, Guwahati-781024 Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabca6974B Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The addition on this count also cannot be sustained. We therefore, inclined to quash the assessment framed by NFAC, Delhi on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The ground nos.12 and 13 are allowed. 2.6. So far as the re-opening of assessment is concerned, we observe that the same is made

LAKSHMI NARAYAN COAL AND MINES LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the case of the above-mentioned assessee for the A.Y 2010-11. A proposal is submitted to the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati-I, Guwahati for his kind approval to issue notice u/s 148 for the A.Y 2010-11. Illegible D.K.Baruah ITO Wd-1(3), Ghy ITO, Ward

JUGAL CHANDRA SAIKIA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Unexplained investment in residential building 760455 Total disputed additions to income: 2508354 I.T.A. Nos.: 258 & 259/GTY/2018 Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94 Jugal Chandra Saikia. 1.1 In appeal bearing number Guwa-109/2003-04/TR, the learned CIT (A)-II, by an order dated 30/11/2006 partly allowed the appeal by holding that the addition was based on too many assumptions. The said

JUGAL CHANDRA SAIKIA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Unexplained investment in residential building 760455 Total disputed additions to income: 2508354 I.T.A. Nos.: 258 & 259/GTY/2018 Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94 Jugal Chandra Saikia. 1.1 In appeal bearing number Guwa-109/2003-04/TR, the learned CIT (A)-II, by an order dated 30/11/2006 partly allowed the appeal by holding that the addition was based on too many assumptions. The said

MANOJ ANAND,GUWAHATI vs. ITO W-2(2) GHY, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Manoj Anand Ito W-2(2), Ghy Flat 4D, Garima Grand, Aaykar Bhawan, Christian Basti, Departmental Representative B. G.S. Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781007, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpa9883C

unexplained cash credit/ bogus credit and added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act in the assessment framed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 25.03.2023. 3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also confirmed the order of the ld. AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee by observing

ASHA CHOUDHURY,IMPHAL vs. INCOME TAX WARD 1 IMPHAL, IMPHAL

Bench: the date of hearing.”

unexplained investment which was wrongly confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. The Learned Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justify in rejecting explanation filed by assesse that she has not made any investment in Hotel Maharani at Basti. 5. The Learned Income Tax Officer was not justify on relying on statement

ASHA CHOUDHURY,IMPHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 IMPHAL, IMPHAL

Bench: the date of hearing.”

unexplained investment which was wrongly confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. The Learned Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justify in rejecting explanation filed by assesse that she has not made any investment in Hotel Maharani at Basti. 5. The Learned Income Tax Officer was not justify on relying on statement

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. WINNER DEALTRADE (P) LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

unexplained share capital and share premium received in the year. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 8. The assessee apart from raising the grounds on merit challenging the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer also challenged the validity of the re-assessment proceedings carried out under section 147 read with section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. LINKSTAR PROMOTERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

unexplained share capital and share premium received in the year. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 8. The assessee apart from raising the grounds on merit challenging the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer also challenged the validity of the re-assessment proceedings carried out under section 147 read with section

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. BRAHMAPUTRA FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

147 / 148 of the Act and those powers are saved. 10. Thus, from a perusal of record, it is clear that the aggregate addition of Rs. 3,62,00,000/- for the impugned assessment year, made by the AO, pertaining to the purported unexplained credits received by the appellant for the captioned assessment year was not based on any incriminating

SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

u/s 143(3) passed by the Ld. AO in total violation of the guidelines issued by the CSDT vide F. No. 225/26/2006-ITA.II (Pt.), dated 08-09-2010. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has issued the appellate order after expiry of the limitation period prescribed by the CBDT vide Instruction No. 20/2003 dated 23-12-2003, as there has been

SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

u/s 143(3) passed by the Ld. AO in total violation of the guidelines issued by the CSDT vide F. No. 225/26/2006-ITA.II (Pt.), dated 08-09-2010. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has issued the appellate order after expiry of the limitation period prescribed by the CBDT vide Instruction No. 20/2003 dated 23-12-2003, as there has been

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH, DIBRUGARH vs. SANTOSH BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 104/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Tax, Circle-1, Dibrugarh Vs Ground Floor Mahalaya Road C/O A.K. Varma Dibrugarh - 786001 [Pan: Aedpb9900P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 34/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Dibrugarh Vs Ground Floor Mahalaya Road C/O A.K. Varma Dibrugarh - 786001 [Pan: Aedpb9900P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central, North-East Region, Guwahati (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 14/07/2023, Passed U/S

unexplained cash credit. In appeal before the ld. CIT(A), assessee got relief on the ground that no incriminating material were found during the course of search pertaining to the alleged transaction giving rise to alleged long term capital gain and since the year under consideration is Assessment Year 2012-13 and the time limit to select the case

JUD CEMENT LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - SHILLONG , SHILLONG

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason was recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason was recorded