M/S.ANUSHRI ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

reassessment was initiated, and income assessed vide order u/s. 143(3) read with s. 147 dated 17/12/2009, enhancing the income for the year to Rs. 6.85 lacs. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were also initiated in respect of income additionally

M/S ANUSHREE ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

reassessment was initiated, and income assessed vide order u/s. 143(3) read with s. 147 dated 17/12/2009, enhancing the income for the year to Rs. 6.85 lacs. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were also initiated in respect of income additionally

SMT. LALITA BAI KHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2007-08 Smt. Lalita Bai Khandelwal V. Income Tax Officer Mangalwara Chouraha Ward 1 Babai, Hoshangabad

147, if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153 of the Act, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

reassessment framed pursuance to notice u/s 148 at para 2 & 3 that sum of Rs.3,23,670/- was not claimed as interest expenses in profit and loss A/c and therefore there was no case for making any disallowance. A.O. further proceeded to assess the same income as determined in regular assessment framed u/s

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

reassessment framed pursuance to notice u/s 148 at para 2 & 3 that sum of Rs.3,23,670/- was not claimed as interest expenses in profit and loss A/c and therefore there was no case for making any disallowance. A.O. further proceeded to assess the same income as determined in regular assessment framed u/s

M/S BINDRA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1),

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2008-09 Bindra Warehousing Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1(1), Corporation, Itarsi

additions has been made, for the reasons for recorded by the assessing officer dated 04/05/2010. Hence the consequential assessment is ab-initio void, and deserves to be set aside. 4. That, the assessment of the appellant was reopened on non-existing and irrelevant reasons hence the reopening u/s. 147/148 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment order dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C 2(1) , JABALPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH JAISHWAL , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Circle 2(1), Vs. Shrirakeshjaiswal, Annexe Building, Bunglow No. 6, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001, Jabalpur-482001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aefpj7779E Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Sanjay Seth Ca & Shri.Sachin Vajpayee, Adv.Ar Revenue By : Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1,Jabalpur Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Income Tax (Appeals)-1,Jabalpur passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Act. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in Law and on facts in deleting the addition Rs. 1,10,58,722/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69B on account of difference between investment in firm

SHRI NITIN SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

reassessment proceedings, for the benefit of the 5 | P a g e Nitin Sharma v. Pr. CIT Revenue. Suffice to state that we find the assessment proceedings to have been validly initiated, and the absence of jurisdictional fact for proceeding u/s. 153A(1) r/w s. 153C. The finality of concluded proceedings cannot be lightly, if at all, disturbed

VISHWANATH SINGH RATHODE,HOSHANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,, ITARSI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Vishwanath Singh Rathode V. Income Tax Officer-1 Village Chapda Grahan, Income Tax Officer-1, Seonimalwa, Seonimalwa, Niyas Coloni Itarsi, Dist Madhya Pradesh-461221. Narmadapuram, Mp- 461111. Pan:Aezpr6401F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 01 2025 O R D E R

147 for reassessment which is not justified and bad in law. 5. The assesse reserves the right to append, alter or delete any ground (S) of appeal upto the time of hearing of appeal.” Page 2 of 4 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are in this case the case was taken up for scrutiny

SUNIL KUMAR PATHAK,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, , REWA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunil Kumar Pathak Vs. Ito, Ward – 1, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Shilpi Rewa-486001, Plaza, Pili Kothi, Madhya Pradesh. Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Arwpp9628A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassessment proceedings though the reasseement notice issue by the Assessing officer is defective and further the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing is sustaining the addition overlooking the voluminous material evidences filed in the assessment and appellate proceedings. On the first issue of validity of issue of notice U/sec148 of the Act, we find the Assessing

VARSMA ENGINEERS GROUP,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Varhsma Engineer’S Group, Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Vijay Nagar, Circle – 1(1), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur (M.P.) [Pan: Aaefv 7885Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2021

147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 vide order dated 16/06/2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership firm in contract business, was assessed at a total income of Rs.6,19,810 for the relevant year vide assessment u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S.TDP & ASSOCIATES, JABALPUR

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s CO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

147 read with section 143(3) of the 1 | P a g e C.O.No. 01/JAB/2022 TDP & Associates Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 28/12/2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The appeal, initially dismissed by the Tribunal on 23/08/2019 on account of low tax-effect, was later recalled vide order u/s. 254(2) dated 27/04/2022 for being

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, DAMOH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

reassessment order dated 23/12/2013 is also bad in law. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) should have held that reopening of the assessment is bad in law. ITA No.175 & 176/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 4 3. Considering the fact that addition of Rs.2,40,580/- for assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.48

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, DAMOH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

reassessment order dated 23/12/2013 is also bad in law. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) should have held that reopening of the assessment is bad in law. ITA No.175 & 176/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 4 3. Considering the fact that addition of Rs.2,40,580/- for assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.48

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

Reassessment is Without Proper Foundation - Absence of Tangible Material The reopening of the assessment under section 147 is purely based on AIR-reported bank deposits without any independent verification or tangible evidence. This amounts to a borrowed satisfaction, which has been consistently held by judicial forums (including Harmeet Singh vs. ITO) as invalid and unsustainable in law. 5. Addition

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT (A), SAGAR

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

Reassessment is Without Proper Foundation - Absence of Tangible Material The reopening of the assessment under section 147 is purely based on AIR-reported bank deposits without any independent verification or tangible evidence. This amounts to a borrowed satisfaction, which has been consistently held by judicial forums (including Harmeet Singh vs. ITO) as invalid and unsustainable in law. 5. Addition