SUBHASHCHAND SUNDERLAL CHANKAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

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

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

reassessment u/s 147 initiated, cease to exist as per appeal order, whether additions made on other grounds will be deleted suo-moto or whether same has to be argued separately before appellate forum for its deletion. 5. That, the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of deposit in passbook treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 is against

AXYKNO CAPITAL SERVICES LTD,,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

justice as no opportunity was given to the assessee to cross examine Shri Praveen Kumar Jain whose statement was relied by revenue to make the addition u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 3 ITA 178/NAG/ 2017 AXYKNO CAPITAL SERVICES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE- 1,NAGPUR 1. The Ld. AR of the Appellant, during the course of hearing reiterated the facts

SUBHASHCHAND CHANDAK (HUF),NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

reassessment u/s 147 initiated, cease to exist as per appeal order, whether additions made on other grounds will be deleted suo-moto or whether same has to be argued separately before appellate forum for its deletion. 6. That, the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of deposit in passbook treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 is against

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

ASHOKKUMAR GOKULCHAND SANANDA,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royashokkumar Gokulchand Acit, Akola Circle, Akola Sananda, Rana Traders, Vs Gandhi Chowk, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhan, Khamgaon Pan : Adpps 755I L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026

147 r.w.s. 143(3) & 144 B of the Act and assessed income at Rs. 2,42,54,457/- without making further any additions. 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide its order dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel

SMT. NALINI SHYAM MOUNDEKAR,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 4(1),, NAGPUR

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

justice due to which AO was constrained to pass exparte order u/s 144 of the Act. I, therefore, hold that the service of notice u/s 148 was a valid service through affixture, in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the AO has assumed a valid jurisdiction to pass order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act.” 11. Against

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

SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

Reassessment proceedings unsustainable on ground of violation of procedure prescribed under section 148A(b). Reliance on : i) 150 taxmann.com 99 (Bom) Anurag Gupta vs. ITO (P- 135 – 139) (138) [Vol.- III] 3. Ground No.2 to 7: Addition Rs.6,77,58,435/- u/s 69C of I.T. Act 1961 is respect of purchases recorded in books of account. A) Regular books

SARDA ENERGY LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3), NAGPUR

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

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

justice and not in accordance with the provisions of law. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in summarily dismissing the appeal by not rendering any decision on merits which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra

SUSHMA SINGHAL,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

natural justice and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal by applying the 2 Smt. Sushma Singhal ITA no.86/Nag./2024 provisions of section 249(4)(b)? however, the said section

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

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

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 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

natural justice in giving adequate opportunity to the assessee to file evidences / details in support of his return of income as required by way of notice under section 143(2) of the Act to make the re-assessment proceedings void particularly so when the assessee himself has consciously and intentionally waived-off his rights to object to these procedural irregularities

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There