ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

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

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

u/s 153A, it is necessary to analyze the provisions of section 132(1) and 153A. The provisions of section 132(1) and 153A are reproduced as under: 12 ITA183/NAG/2017 NEW VIRAJ HOUSING AGENCY VS ACIT , C.C. 1(1), NAGPUR 153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148,section 149, section-151 and section

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

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

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

131 to called for cross examine, even though the assessee has submitted the all the details of company during the course of assessment proceedings. The learned assessing officer has failed to grant opportunity being cross examine the directors and has also failed to verify the documents submitted by assessee are genuine or not and made addition on assumption and presumption

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

Section 68, initial onus was upon appellant to establish identity, genuineness of transaction and capacity of lender or depositor-Confirmation of transaction had been received by AO by issuing notice U/s. 133(6), therefore, identity had been established-Genuineness of transaction could be safely concluded since entire transaction had been done through banking channel duly recorded in books of assesse

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

131 giving opportunity for cross examination. Considering the facts of the case, statement of oath of Shri Barde, sequence of events such as date of sale deed and date of cash deposits of Shri Barde in saving bank account, it is clear that the assessee has made cash payments of Rs. 27 lac to Shri Barde against the purchase

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..

147 of the Act.” 11. Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 12. The contentions of the learned counsel of the assessee are summarized as under : “A) AO has observed that notices u/s 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 are served by affixture on 26/03/2009. In the assessment proceeding assessee has submitted before A.O. that notice

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 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 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 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 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

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:-

131 and notices u/s 133(6) and mentioned the same in the assessment order. However, none of the summons or the notices have been uploaded on the system inspite of specific direction given in the said Instruction no. 3/2018 as submitted by the JCIT in his letter dt.24.01.2019 for remedial action,.” The said observation of the Ld.PCIT that

CITY LAND ASSOCIATES,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

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

147. It is a well-settled law that where the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries and investigation, such failure on the part of the Assessing Officer will result in prejudice to interests of the revenue and initiation of action under section 263 by the Commissioner under such circumstances will be perfectly valid and justified. The question whether