SHRI AJAYSINGH GAJANANSINGH GOUR,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GONDIA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

sections 147 and 148 of the Act. 13. Though no specific notice was required u/s 143(2) of the Act, as noted above, the questionnaire dated November 11, 2003 and January 21, 2004, provided the assessee specific opportunity to support his return by seeking documentary evidence and details in regard to the following query:– “As per the return, interest

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to h his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.” 8. We have considered facts of the case

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to h his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.” 8. We have considered facts of the case

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

reassessment, make a reference to a Valuation Officer to estimate the value, including fair market value, of any asset, property or investment and submit a copy of report to him.‖ 17. Thus no reference to Valuation Officer by Assessing Officer. It is worthwhile to note that in order under section 155(15) of the Act, the 18 SushilaBhauraoDeshmukh ITAno.76/Nag./2022

PARTH ENTERPRISES ,BHADRAWATI vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

reassessment under Section 147 without establishing the necessary condition of "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment, as required under the law. The appellant had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, and there was no failure on its part to disclose any relevant information, making the reopening unjustified and invalid. 5. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

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

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred..... except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.” 20. The emphasis supplied in the above excerpt of section 153D above, is to highlight the intent of the legislature regarding the necessity of application of mind to the draft

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

142(1), 143(2) of the Act were also issued by the ACIT- 1(1) on various dates in the year 2020, which were duly attended by the assessee. The cases were handled by the ACIT-1(1) for good one year and then transferred to ACIT-2(1) vide order dated 22/01/2021 passed under section

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

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

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred..... except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.” 20. The emphasis supplied in the above excerpt of section 153D above, is to highlight the intent of the legislature regarding the necessity of application of mind to the draft

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing\nOfficer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment\nyear referred..... except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.”\n20. The emphasis supplied in the above excerpt of section 153D above, is to\nhighlight the intent of the legislature regarding the necessity of application of\nmind to the draft

M/S SHREE SAIBABA CONSTRUCTION,,NAGPUR vs. CIT-IV,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment or by way of rectification of mistake. In a case of this nature the revenue is not without remedy. Section 263 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to review an order which is prejudicial to the revenue". In the present case, taking recourse to the revisional jurisdiction, the order passed by the A.O. has been established to be both

M/S NEW VIRAJ HOUSING AGENCY,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

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

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

reassessment, — (a) in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to inclause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A, within a period of twenty-one months fromthe end of the financial year in which the last of the authorisations for search undersection 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed; (b) in respect

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

142(1), 143(2) of the Act were also issued by the ACIT- 1(1) on various dates in the year 2020, which were duly attended by the assessee. The cases were handled by the ACIT-1(1) for good one year and then transferred to ACIT-2(1) vide order dated 22/01/2021 passed under section

MAYUR KHARA,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

142(1) which was duly answered by way of various details, explanations and letters. Complete books of account supported with documentary evidences were produced and examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings. The appellant had appeared before the AO and filed replies, however, the ld. PCIT has completely ignored the detailed enquiry conducted by the AO and has, therefore

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

142(1), 143(2) of the Act were also issued by the ACIT-\n1(1) on various dates in the year 2020, which were duly attended by the\nassessee. The cases were handled by the ACIT-1(1) for good one year\nand then transferred to ACIT-2(1) vide order dated 22/01/2021 passed\nunder section

SHRI CHAITANYA KOCHAR,HINGANGHAT vs. I.T.O., WARDHA

In the result, the impugned

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

reassessment made under section 153-A by order dt.30.12.2010 for A.Y. 2002-03 to A.Y.2008-09 in pursuance of search U/s.132(1) dt.07.09.2007 is barred by limitation as provided in section 153-B. The search having taken place in F.Y.2007-08 the assessment U/s.153-A was required to be completed within 21 months from end of F.Y.2007-08 i.e. on or before

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

142(1) are holding different territorial jurisdictions. c. As the reassessment proceedings are illegal and invalid, the reassessment order passed in consequence of such invalid notice, is also non–est in the eyes of law. 2. On the given facts and the law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing reassessment notice under section

YRCE EDUCATE PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

142(1), 143(2) of the Act were also issued by the ACIT-\n1(1) on various dates in the year 2020, which were duly attended by the\nassessee. The cases were handled by the ACIT-1(1) for good one year\nand then transferred to ACIT-2(1) vide order dated 22/01/2021 passed\nunder section

VAISHNAV YASHWANT ASHTANKAR,NAGPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - NAGPUR 2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

142(1) of the Act seeking certain details and documents from the assessee, in response to which the Vaishnav Yashwant Ashtankar A.Y. 2016–17 assessee furnished replies stating that he was owner of a gas agency under the name of M/s. Satyabama Indane Gas Agency and that he along with two other co–owners, had purchased a property

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

2. Invalid Reassessment Proceedings: 3 Aditi Express Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. The reassessment order dated 26.03.2022, passed under Sections 147/144, is invalid due to the non-service of notice under Section 148. The notice was returned unserved, and no further attempts were made to serve the assessee via alternate modes, including affixture. 3. Lack of Tangible Material for Reassessment