VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

reassessment proceedings." 6.2.5 I have perused the matter and it is seen from the assessment order that the proper procedure was followed and no infirmity in law. The Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment and this belief should be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. Taking

VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

reassessment proceedings." 6.2.5 I have perused the matter and it is seen from the assessment order that the proper procedure was followed and no infirmity in law. The Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment and this belief should be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. Taking

VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 (4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

reassessment proceedings." 6.2.5 I have perused the matter and it is seen from the assessment order that the proper procedure was followed and no infirmity in law. The Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment and this belief should be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. Taking

SHRIKANT BHERULAL SHARMA LATE BHERULAL GIRDHARILAL SHARMA,WASHIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 , AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

cash deposit of Rs.87,50,000/- in the Akola Janata Co-operative Bank Ltd. 6] On 23-02-2021, the Pr.C.I.T. Nagpur-1 passed an order u/s. 263 of the Act, setting aside the order dated 24-08-2018 passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) and ordered the reassessment

SHRIKANT BHERULAL SHARMA LATE BHERULAL GIRDHARILAL SHARMA ,WASHIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

cash deposit of Rs.87,50,000/- in the Akola Janata Co-operative Bank Ltd. 6] On 23-02-2021, the Pr.C.I.T. Nagpur-1 passed an order u/s. 263 of the Act, setting aside the order dated 24-08-2018 passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) and ordered the reassessment

SMT SHASHI MUDALIYAR,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the years are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

reassessment u/s 153A. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,02,000/- made by the assessing officer by holding that the assessee had failed to explain the source of cash deposit

ABID MUSTAFA KHAN,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabid Mustafa Khan, 301, Mayfair Residency, Raj Nagar Opp. Green Park, Nagpur 440 013, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aqipk9595G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(2), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

cash deposits of Rs. 92,20,000/-whereas the addition made is only ₹46,95,000/-. The inconsistency renders the reassessment

MITHILESH JAGDEO SINGH PAWAR,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD-5, AMRAVATI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Mithilesh Jagdeo Singh Ito Ward-5 Pawar, Besides Dps, Vs. Ghatladki, Chandur Bazar, Saturna Road, Maharashtra - 444720. Maharashtra - 444605. Pan: Bpfpp6167L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Mrudul Bhusari, Ld. Adv {Ld. Amicus Curie} Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry:

cash deposit in M/s. Janata Sahakari Bank, Amaravati was not discussed in the said assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the reasons recorded, the AO has formed the belief that no scrutiny assessment 5 Mr. Mithilesh Jagdeo Singh Pawar u/s 143(3) of the Act has been made, whereas in the final outcome of the reassessment

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

VISHAL KISHORILAL JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

reassessment u/s 148, overlooking the fact that copy of reasons recorded were not supplied to the assessee in spite of specific request by the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the AO invoked Section 68 but made the final addition u/s 69 without providing the opportunity to the appellant to respond, violating natural justice

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, YAVATMAL, YAVATMAL vs. PIYUSH TUSHAR PARALIKAR, YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royito, Ward-1, Yavatmal Piyush Tushar Paralikar, Vs 9, Radha Raman Nagar, Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal, Maharashtra-445001 Pan : Asepp 6032 D Revenue Assessee Assessee By : Shri Krish Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 Order

cash deposits with proper evidence. Mere claim of retail sales is insufficient without maintaining proper books of accounts, stock register and sales bills. He further submitted that assessee failed to 4 establish source of funds and the Ld. AO rightly treated it as unexplained income. Therefore, the order of Ld. AO be restored and CIT(A)’s order

GANESH MAHADEORAO THAWARE,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD 5(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

reassessment was initiated on the basis of information with the department from the NMS Category of AIMS module, 5 Ganesh Mahadeorao Thaware ITA no.623/Nag./2024 that during the relevant financial year the appellant had made cash deposits

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred