ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, FOURTH FLOOR, LOKNAYAK JAY PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAKBUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. TULSHYAN METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.339&340/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1, Patna……..........................................................……….……Appellant Vs. Tulshyan Metals Pvt. Ltd…………………………...............……...…..…..Respondent 3D, Shakambari Complex, Sabji Bazar Chowk, Nagla Bihar-800008. [Pan: Aacct2904K] Appearances By: Shri Ashok Kumar Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 30.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since, The Substantive Issues Are Common In Both The Assessment Years & The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Therefore, The Two Appeals Are Being Disposed Of Through This Single Order. 2. However, In Both The Cases, The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act Through Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Has Been In Dispute, Whereby, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Held That Since Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Not Issued For Both The Years, Following The Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Then The Subsequent Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144, R.W.S 144B Of The Act Would Be Null & Void. However, For The Sake Of Record, The Grounds In Both The Cases Are Extracted As Under:

144 of the Act, in an ex-parte manner. At this stage the relevant sections of the Act need to be extracted: Section 143 ….. (2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub- section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer shall,— (i) where he has reason to believe that

ACIT vs. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WELFARE HUMAN RESOURCES,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed while the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassess- ment order under section 144 read with section147. 3 I.T.A. No. 119/PAT/2011 & C.O. No.1/PAT/2012 International School of Social Welfare

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of1957). ” Wealth Tax Act “(2) Definition (r) "Valuation Officer" means a person appointed as a Valuation Officer under section 12A, and includes a Regional Valuation Officer, a District Valuation Officer, and an Assistant Valuation Officer

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of1957). ” Wealth Tax Act “(2) Definition (r) "Valuation Officer" means a person appointed as a Valuation Officer under section 12A, and includes a Regional Valuation Officer, a District Valuation Officer, and an Assistant Valuation Officer

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA, BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of1957). ” Wealth Tax Act “(2) Definition (r) "Valuation Officer" means a person appointed as a Valuation Officer under section 12A, and includes a Regional Valuation Officer, a District Valuation Officer, and an Assistant Valuation Officer

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of1957). ” Wealth Tax Act “(2) Definition (r) "Valuation Officer" means a person appointed as a Valuation Officer under section 12A, and includes a Regional Valuation Officer, a District Valuation Officer, and an Assistant Valuation Officer

DINESH BARANWAL,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), MOTIHARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.593/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Dinesh Baranwal……………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/ M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C. R Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kol-72. [Pan: Adkpg6603N] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Motihari…...……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24 , 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Passed By The Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 57 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Dealer Of A Telecom Service Operator, Namely M/S Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Pvt.

reassessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 vide order dated 09.12 2019, estimating income and initiating penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c) of the act. The AO levied

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

144 of the Act are applicable only when the assessee does cooperate and does not furnish any details/information and then it does not require to issue any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act but the facts in the instant case are different. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly same

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

144 of the Act are applicable only when the assessee does cooperate and does not furnish any details/information and then it does not require to issue any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act but the facts in the instant case are different. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly same

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

144 of the Act are applicable only when the assessee does cooperate and does not furnish any details/information and then it does not require to issue any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act but the facts in the instant case are different. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly same

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

144 of the Act are applicable only when the assessee does cooperate and does not furnish any details/information and then it does not require to issue any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act but the facts in the instant case are different. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly same

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

144 of the Act are applicable only when the assessee does cooperate and does not furnish any details/information and then it does not require to issue any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act but the facts in the instant case are different. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly same

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

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144 read with Section 147 of the Act by the Ld. assessing officer is far from best judgment assessment as envisaged in law. 8. For that the Id assessing officer has erred in not taking into consideration the return of income filed under Section 148 of the Act on the sole ground that the same was filed after the specified

RAMESHWARI AGRO SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.187&188/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Rameshwari Agro Services Pvt. Ltd.…..…………………....Appellant C/O Lakshman Prasad & Kamlesh Kr. Yadav (Directors), Jai Gurudev Automobile, Gaya Road, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, Bihar-824113. [Pan: Aahcr9701K] Vs. Nfac, Delhi…………………….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 29.07.24 & 31.07.24 Passed By The Nfac ["Cit(A)"]. Since The Issues Involved In Ita Nos.187 & 188/Patna/2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Are Identical Except For Figures & Assessment Years, Both Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, The Facts Are First Taken From Ita No.187/Patna/2025. 2. Ita No. 187/Patna/ 2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Assessment

reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144, by treating the entire deposit of Rs.5,17,1450 as unexplained money

RAMESHWARI AGRO SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.187&188/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Rameshwari Agro Services Pvt. Ltd.…..…………………....Appellant C/O Lakshman Prasad & Kamlesh Kr. Yadav (Directors), Jai Gurudev Automobile, Gaya Road, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, Bihar-824113. [Pan: Aahcr9701K] Vs. Nfac, Delhi…………………….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 29.07.24 & 31.07.24 Passed By The Nfac ["Cit(A)"]. Since The Issues Involved In Ita Nos.187 & 188/Patna/2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Are Identical Except For Figures & Assessment Years, Both Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, The Facts Are First Taken From Ita No.187/Patna/2025. 2. Ita No. 187/Patna/ 2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Assessment

reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144, by treating the entire deposit of Rs.5,17,1450 as unexplained money

AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3(1), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has gone through the facts of the case and has held that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove that the facts and findings of the Ld. AO were incorrect and in the instant case

LOVELY RANI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, PATNA

REASSESSMENT ORDER, AS THE CASE MAY\nBE, IS REQUIRED TO BE PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE\nPRIOR APPROVAL OF THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER]\nUNDER SUB-SECTION (12) OF SECTION 144

SAROJ BALA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 & Saroj Bala, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna 101, Ramayan Apartment, New Dakbaglow Road, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aaspb 3828 P & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.267/Pat/24 & Ita Nos.279, 282 & 283/Pat/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2018-19) & Cross Objection No.02/Pat/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.295/Pat/2023) (Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt Ltd Vs Acit, Circle-1, Patna 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aabcl 8329 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.295/Pat/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-1, Patna Vs Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt Ltd 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aabcl 8329 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.272, 273, 274, 275, 276 & 278/Pat/2023 (A.Yrs : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2018-19) Murlidhar Prasad, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna 101, Ramayan Apartment, New Dakbaglow Road, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aekpp 1361 D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144

SAROJ BALA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 & Saroj Bala, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna 101, Ramayan Apartment, New Dakbaglow Road, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aaspb 3828 P & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.267/Pat/24 & Ita Nos.279, 282 & 283/Pat/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2018-19) & Cross Objection No.02/Pat/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.295/Pat/2023) (Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt Ltd Vs Acit, Circle-1, Patna 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aabcl 8329 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.295/Pat/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-1, Patna Vs Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt Ltd 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aabcl 8329 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.272, 273, 274, 275, 276 & 278/Pat/2023 (A.Yrs : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2018-19) Murlidhar Prasad, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna 101, Ramayan Apartment, New Dakbaglow Road, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aekpp 1361 D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144