BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

13 results for “reassessment”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi83Chennai78Mumbai38Jaipur32Hyderabad30Ahmedabad28Bangalore26Surat21Agra16Patna13Jodhpur11Rajkot11Visakhapatnam9Raipur9Chandigarh7Amritsar7Pune7Indore6Lucknow6Cochin6Kolkata6Cuttack2Dehradun2Nagpur2Guwahati1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 14827Section 14718Section 25017Section 69A17Section 14411Addition to Income11Demonetization10Cash Deposit10Section 142(1)9Reassessment

UPAM SHREE,BHAGALPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 40/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 40/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Upam Shree, C/O Ashok Kumar Mandal, Sabjee Chowk, Barari, Bhagalpur - 812003 [Pan: Ecfps5292P] ……….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna – 1, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna - 800001 ............…..........................…..…..... Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

demonetization as against deposit of sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- only. Therefore, on wrong facts making such addition in the hands of the assessee renderes the reassessment

7
Unexplained Money6
Reopening of Assessment5

SANTOSH KUMAR,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD- 3 (3), AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.211/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

demonetization period, case of the assessee was picked up and notice u/s. 148 of the Act issued for carrying out the assessment proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act. In the course of the reassessment

USHASHREE DEVI,BHAGALPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 42/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ushashree Devi, Sabjee Chowk, Barari, Bhagalpur - 812003 [Pan: Aeppd6663K] ……….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna – 1, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna - 800001 ............…..........................…..…..... Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

demonetization as against deposit of sum of Rs. 5,45,000/- only. Therefore, on the basis of wrong assumption of facts by making such addition in the hands of the assessee renderes the reassessment

SMT. RANJU KUMARI,JAMUI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (5), LAKHISARAI

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

ITA 339/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

demonetization period without making a specific allegation that the amount has been deposited out of source other than sale proceeds of a Petrol Pump, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 5. For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of the AO in arbitrarily initiating the reassessment

MADHURI DEVI,SAHARSA vs. ITO WARD- 3 (4), SAHARSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 238/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

reassessment notice would be without jurisdiction. 4. For that, the Learned AO has erred in framing assessment proceeding without issuing/serving Notice under section 143(2). The Ld AO never issued /served notice u/s 142(1) till date of passing of re-assessment order. 5. For that the Learned AO has erred in making addition

RANJEET SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 69A

demonetization and balance amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- was deposited in the rest of period of relevant year under consideration. During the course of assessment proceeding nature and source of above deposit was explained as gift from father. The appellant father is an agriculturist having 7 acres of well fertile and irrigated land. In support of above assertion

PRERNA AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/PAT/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 251Section 68

reassessment order be quashed. 10. For that the sanction u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act 1961 before the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was mechanical and without application of proper mind and the sanction was bad in law and hence the reopening be held to be bad in law. 11. For that

PAVAN KUMAR BHAGAT,SAHARSA vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 281/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37Section 69A

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act and has grossly acted in violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs ITO reported in [2002] 125 Taxman 963 (SC) and [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). 10. For that the Ld. Assessing officer has erred not serving any notice

BHOLA PRASAD YADAV,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 288/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

demonetization as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. Further, as the assessee had disclosed business income, the balance amount of ₹8,38,62,93/- deposited in the bank account was considered as undisclosed turnover and profit was calculated by applying the rate of 8% on the turnover

MD IFTAKHAR ALAM,ARARIA vs. ITO, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 389/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 250Section 69A

demonetization (incorrectly mentioned as 08.11.2019 and 31.12.2019 instead of from 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in para 2.2), the assessee received cash from the villagers which was deposited in the Central Bank of India and total cash of ₹13,42,000/- was claimed to be deposited and not ₹23,01,901/- as stated

AJAY KUMAR,SARAN, BIHAR vs. ITO, CHAPRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 402/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 44ASection 69A

demonetization period in the bank accounts the Ld. AO treated the same as business turnover of the assessee and applied provisions of section 44AD of the Act and computed the profit @ 8% thereon and made an addition of ₹12,97,020/-. As regards the capital requirement for running the business by adopting the peak cash deposit

MOHAMMAD KASIF RAJA,MILIK TOLA, KHOKSA, BAISI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), PURNEA, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 322/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

demonetization is his previous year Income and savings and also he is a CSP holder having income from Commission from Bank. No evidence on that count were produced during the appellate proceeding. Also, it is pertinent to note here that before the A.O. failed to produce evidence for cash deposits. Therefore, in absence of evidence the claim made

BRIJESH KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

demonetization period Rs. 14,00,000/- aggregating to Rs. 76,64,582/- which were added to the total income, is requested to be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a civil contractor and also a road contractor. The return was filed showing total income of ₹59,96,120/-. The case was selected for scrutiny