BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

6 results for “reassessment”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi83Chennai78Mumbai38Jaipur32Hyderabad30Ahmedabad28Bangalore26Surat21Agra16Patna13Jodhpur11Rajkot11Visakhapatnam9Raipur9Chandigarh7Amritsar7Pune7Indore6Lucknow6Cochin6Kolkata6Cuttack2Dehradun2Nagpur2Guwahati1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 2509Section 69A9Section 1447Section 1486Demonetization6Section 1475Cash Deposit5Addition to Income5Section 115B4Limitation/Time-bar

AMALENDU KUMAR MODAK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 50(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1367/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amalendu Kumar Modak, Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Karer Ganga, Laha Bagan, Garia, Income Tax Office, Civil Centre, Vs Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084, Uttarapan Complex, West Bengal Manicktala, Kolkata-700 067, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpm9399G Present For: Appellant By : Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit (A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2017-18 Dated 14.11.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 147 Read With Section 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Indranil Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148
3
Unexplained Cash Credit2
Unexplained Money2
Section 148A
Section 149
Section 149(1)(a)
Section 151
Section 151A
Section 250

Reassessment Proceeding is not maintainable for not having complied with mandatory methodology , i.e., through Faceless Mode). Amalendu Kumar Modak; A.Y. 2017-18 Grounds on Merit C 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 41,72,360/- being the Cash deposited in Bank during the Demonetization

SAIFA MOLLA,BISHNUPUR vs. ITO, WARD 26(3), , KOLKATA

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

demonetization period amounting to ₹46,33,000/- and upheld the finding of the Ld. AO treating the same as deemed income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act for the year under consideration. Further, since proper opportunities were provided to the assessee to furnish written submission but the assessee failed to do so, the Ld. CIT(A) accordingly dismissed

SAMIRUDDIN KHAN,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), , BURDWAN

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

ITA 1169/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

demonetization period to the tune of ₹11,60,500/-, bogus sundry creditors claimed to the tune of ₹1,00,000/- and disallowed expenses u/s 40A(3) of the Act I.T.A. No.: 1169/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Samiruddin Khan. to the tune of ₹2,11,244/- and assessed the total income

ANSHUL SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 49(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 935/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.935/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Anshul Singh Vs Ito, Wd 49(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Ds-4, Uttarapan Complex, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Ultadanga, Maniktala Civic Centre, Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700054, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Pan No. :Csrps9550G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 12.02.2025, Passed For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Reasons Recorded For Reopening Which Is Mentioned In Para 2 Of The Assessment Order, Reads As Follows :- “2. As Per The Information Available That- Credible Information Was Received From The Office Of Ddit(Inv.), Unit-2(1), Kolkata That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.7,46,000/- During Demonetization On Ohd Notes. From The Details Available It Was Found That The Assessee Has Deposited The Said Cash During Demonetization In The Bank Account Maintained By Him With Corporation Bank, Baguiati Branch. The Same Details Is Also Available In Its Details Of The 2 Assessee. However, The Source Of Such Huge Cash In Ohd Notes Is Not Ascertained As Per Financials Of The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AR
Section 147Section 148

demonetization in the bank account maintained by him with Corporation Bank, Baguiati branch. The same details is also available in ITS details of the 2 assessee. However, the source of such huge cash in OHD notes is not ascertained as per financials of the assessee.” 4. It was the submission that no further verification has been done by the Assessing

GOBINDA ADHIKARY,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. WARD 34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL

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

ITA 2802/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69Section 69A

demonetization) as unexplained money. Ground No. 2: Wrongful Invocation of Section 115BBE That the Ld. CIT(A) erred, in law and on facts, in confirming the invocation of the special tax rate provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income tax Act, 1961. ITA No.: 2802/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gobinda Adhikary. Ground No. 3: Quashing of Assessment Order (Violation

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 145Section 250Section 43C

Demonetization Period on extraneous considerations not germane to the issue and totally ignoring the cogent explanation adduced on record and the impugned finding on that issue is completely unfounded, unjustified, and untenable in law. 6. FOR THAT on a true and proper interpretation of the scope of the provisions of s. 145(3) of the Income