SHRI SUBHASHCHAND CHANDAK,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

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed

u/s 148 of 1.T. Act 1961\nvitates the reassessment proceedings initiated and assessment framed is\nunsustainable and is required to be cancelled on this basis alone. There are\nvarious judicial pronouncements that support the above view. It has been held\nin these decisions that since the findings of the Supreme Court in GKN\nDriveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income

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

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

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

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

justice to the assessee; 16. Suspicion cannot be a good evidence for the purpose of assessment unless it is corroborated by clinching evidence brought on record after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee; 17. These facts which emerge from the assessment order in no way have been disputed by the assessing officer. No direct evidence has been brought on record

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

natural justice. The said procedural lapse vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings and renders the notice and consequential order bad in law and void ab initio." 05. Learned AO erred in making addition u/s. 69A though in order every where this addition is mentioned as "Unexplained Cash Credits". 06. Learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds