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.

14 results for “reassessment”+ Section 282A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai24Raipur14Bangalore8Chandigarh7Rajkot3Delhi3Hyderabad3Jodhpur1Amritsar1Panaji1Pune1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)32Section 282A(1)25Section 15121Section 14815Section 143(3)10Addition to Income8Section 133(6)6Section 2825Reassessment5TDS

RAMAN VASU THACHISARIL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD- JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/RPR/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.91/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Raman Vasu Thachisaril Ramanalayam Clappana, Kollam, Amrithapuri S.O-690 546 Kerala, India Pan: Adopt0795N

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 282A(1)

Section 282A(1) of the Act, hence, such notice is held invalid, arbitrary and void ab initio. 24. That once the very notice u/s.148 of the Act is invalid, void ab initio, hence, the A.O ceases to possess any valid inherent jurisdiction to complete the reassessment

5
Limitation/Time-bar5
Section 1474

RAVI RAIKA, BHILAI,BHILAI vs. ACIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.763/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ravi Raika 22/4, Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 020 Pan: Acjpa2125R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Moolchand Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282ASection 282A(1)

Section 282A(1) of the Act, hence such approval is held to be invalid, arbitrary and void ab initio. 8. That once the very approval u/s. 151 of the Act is invalid and void ab initio, hence the A.O ceases to possess any valid inherent jurisdiction to complete the reassessment

MANOJ KUMAR SAHU, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 474/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.474/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manoj Kumar Sahu 151, Village: Rajpur, Tehsil: Dhamdha, Dist. Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Eomps2921J

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 151Section 282A(1)

Section 282A(1) of the Act, hence such approval is held to be invalid, arbitrary and void ab initio. 8. That once the very approval u/s. 151 of the Act is invalid and void ab initio, hence the A.O ceases to possess any valid inherent jurisdiction to complete the reassessment

MANOJ KUMAR SAHU, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.475/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manoj Kumar Sahu 151, Village: Rajpur, Tehsil: Dhamdha, Dist. Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Eomps2921J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 282A(1)

reassessment observing as follows: “5. The third legal ground that has been raised by the assessee is that the approval u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) which was received by the assessee online was not signed, therefore, it is in violation of Section 282A(1

DAYA THOURANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per afore-stated terms

ITA 1/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Daya Thourani Thourani Niwas, Near Mla Rest House, Tagore Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Ablpt6191R

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 282Section 282A(1)

282A(1) of the Act regarding mandatorily signing of notice even if such notice is sent to the assessee in electronic form. 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that such notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act which has been issued to the assessee was unsigned. The revenue has not placed on record

FIROJ ALAM, BHILAI,DURG vs. ITO-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 830/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Firoj Alam H. No.0, Hathkhoj, Indira Nagar, Bhilai-490 026 Pan: Bgmpa0920J

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 282A(1)

282A(1) of the Act regarding mandatorily signing of notice even if such notice is sent to the assessee in electronic form. 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that such notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act which has been issued to the assessee was unsigned. The revenue has not placed on record

G.T. REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per afore-stated terms

ITA 95/RPR/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.95/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 G.T Reality Private Limited 23, G.T. Shopping Plaza, Avanti Bai Chowk, Kapa, Raipur (C.G.)-492 007 Pan: Aadcg9139N

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 282Section 282A(1)

282A(1) of the Act regarding mandatorily signing of notice even if such notice is sent to the assessee in electronic form. 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that such notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act which has been issued to the assessee was unsigned. The revenue has not placed on record

LAXMI HANUMANTA,, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.362/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Laxmi Hanumanta Iris 76, Chohan Green Vally, Junwani Road, Bhilai-490 020 (C.G.) Pan: Abyph5918B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 282Section 282ASection 282A(1)

Section 282A(1) of the Act, hence, such notice is held invalid, arbitrary and void ab initio. 6. That once the very notice u/s.148 of the Act is invalid, void ab initio, hence, the A.O ceases to possess any valid inherent jurisdiction to complete the reassessment

NANDA SINGH, SURAJPUR,SURAJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 677/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.677/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nanda Singh Behind Civil Court, Ward No.8, Surajpur-492 229 (C.G.) Pan: Dbmps5756K

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 151Section 282Section 282A(1)Section 292B

282A(1) of the Act regarding mandatorily signing of notice even if such notice is sent to the assessee in electronic form. 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that such notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act which has been issued to the assessee was unsigned. The revenue has not placed on record

SMT. SHOBHA DUBEY, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 395/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.395/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. Shobha Dubey House No.143, Anand Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Acopa8043K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 282Section 282ASection 282A(1)

282A(1) of the Act regarding mandatorily signing of notice even if such notice is sent to the assessee in electronic form. 11 Smt. Shobha Dubey Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that such notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act which has been issued

NEELAM CHANDRAKAR, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

Section 282A(1) of the Act, hence, such notice is held invalid, arbitrary and void ab initio. 24. That once the very notice u/s.148 of the Act is invalid, void ab initio, hence, the A.O ceases to possess any valid inherent jurisdiction to complete the reassessment

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

Section 282A(1) of the Act, hence, such notice is held invalid, arbitrary and void ab initio. 24. That once the very notice u/s.148 of the Act is invalid, void ab initio, hence, the A.O ceases to possess any valid inherent jurisdiction to complete the reassessment

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 442/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

Section 282A(1) of the Act, hence, such notice is held invalid, arbitrary and void ab initio. 24. That once the very notice u/s.148 of the Act is invalid, void ab initio, hence, the A.O ceases to possess any valid inherent jurisdiction to complete the reassessment

GURUSUKH ENERGY INDIA PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.643/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)Section 246(5)Section 250Section 282ASection 282A(1)Section 69C

282A(1) of the Income-tax Act, which requires electronic documents to be authenticated only as prescribed by the system, without manual identifiers. Mentioning the officer's location and handwritten or typed designation constitutes an invalid mode of authentication that renders the order procedurally defective. Ground 3-Non-compliance with CBDT's Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction Schemes That by disclosing