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

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

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

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

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

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

cash deposits in their bank accounts as\nunexplained investments of those creditors under section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers

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

reassessment is\nbad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no\nincriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of\nsearch in the case of assessee.\nWe would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for\naddition made in the Assessment order.\nGROUND NO. 2;\nThat the learned AO erred

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

cash\nfound during the course of search even though all the afore-mentioned items\nwere found by him as duly explained.\n(4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not allowing the\ntelescoping of other addition made from the amount remaining out of\nsurrender after the adjustment of unexplained cash, ornaments & jewellery