OM PRAAKSH SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Om Prakash Singh Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sankalp, East Jail Road, Ranchi- 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agkps0300D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

reassessment proceedings was claimed to be started by assessing officer on 24.12.2014 which is also beyond four years. 8. It is a settled position of law that where an assessment under sub-section 3 of section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, then no action shall be taken under 5 Om Prakash Singh Assessment Year

KROSS LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. PCIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reopening of assessment nor the Assessing Officer during the course of reassessment proceedings came across any such escapement of income

M/S CHHAGANLAL AGARWAL,CHAIBASA vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), CHAIBASA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.319/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Chhaganlal Agarwal, Vs. Ito Ward-3(4), Chaibasa Bari Bazar, Chaibasa-833201 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaffc 6053 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess

SMT. WARSHA BAGARIA,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-3(3), RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

reopening the assessment based on the information received from CIB/AIR without application of his mind to the same and without forming any valid reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. Therefore, initiation of reassessment

MANISH AGARWAL,BALLYGUNGE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.16/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 201-12 Manish Agarwal……….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 35A, Tirumala Apartment, Ballygunge Park, Kol- 700019. [Pan: Acdpa1176E] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi......…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sunit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 28.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee Group On 23.10.2019. Pursuant To The Said Search, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued A Notice Under Section 153A Of The Act Calling Upon The Assessee To File Its Return Of Income For Six Assessment Years Preceding The Year Of Search. In Response To The Notice Under Section 153A, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2011–12, Declaring A Total Income Of ₹6,95,180/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Several Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee, Which

reopened only up to six years, and in specified cases, up to seven years, subject to the condition that income escaping assessment exceeds ₹50 lakh. The ld. counsel in this respect has referred to section 153A which reads as under: "153A. Assessment in case of search or requisition - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 139, Section 147, Section 148, Section

SRI JITENDRA KUMAR PANDEY,BOKARO vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, HZB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-2011

reassessment proceedings framed u/s.147 of the Act. He submitted that since the assessee failed to substantiate the difference in sundry creditors before the Assessing Officer, hence, the AO reopened

INDICO MOTORS PRIVATE LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2006-2007

reopening of assessment is bad in law and consequently we cancel the reassessment order u/s.147 of the Act dated 30.11.2011. 8. As we have

SHAH BROTHERS,CHAIBASA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, Revenue's appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.275/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shah Brothers, Chaibasa……...................…...........................……….……Appellant Sadar Bazar, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand-833201. [Pan: Aazfs7498F] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.11.2023 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’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,04,03,980/- For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.102.108 Accepting The Said Returned Income. Subsequently, Based On Information Received From Dcit, Cc-1(3), Mumbai, It Was Alleged That The Said Assessee Had Claimed A Bogus Contract Expenses Of Rs.2,69,14,526/- In Lieu Of The Bogus Work Order To M/S Pandhe Infracons Pvt. Ltd. During The F.Y 2015-16 Without Any Actual Work Had Been Performed. The Revenue Relied Upon Search Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Conducted On M/S

assessment year 2015-16 in the appeal, hence, the finding given by the ld. CIT(A) to reopen that year is beyond the jurisdiction and contrary to the principle of natural justice. He further stated that the statement of third parties i.e. Shri D. L. Pawar, Shri Ankur Pandhe, Shri Anil Kr. Kabra were never shared during the reassessment

KULDIP SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is bad in law. Since the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 22.11.2019 is barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment framed pursuant thereto is void ab initio. Accordingly, we quash the reassessment

SUNIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY HUF,DABAGARDENS vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.470/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sunil Kumar Choudhary Huf...................…...........................……….……Appellant 30-15-138/20 Binoy Aka Complex, Opp. Bsnl Office, Andra Pradesh-530020. [Pan: Aabhs6048Q] Vs. Acit……………………..........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 2Nd , 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 07.10.2024 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’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Huf & Engaged In The Business Of Wholesaler, Transporter, Lease Rent. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,72,850/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass Followed Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act & Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) On 25.03.2015 With Assessed Income Of Rs.16,89,850/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. The Assessee Sought Reasons Recorded For Reopening, However The Assessing Officer Rejected Such Request Stating That The Assessee Failed To File Return In

reopening, however the Assessing Officer rejected such request stating that the assessee failed to file return in I.T.A. No.470/Ran/2024 Sunil Kumar Choudhary HUF response to notice u/s 148. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer made the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 29.10.19 assessing total income of assessee of Rs.3,71,59,193/-. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order

COLEN CHEMICAL PVT. LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.165 & 167/Ran/2025 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur 1St Floor, Room No.9, Tiwary Bechar Complex, Main Rd. Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcc 3978 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That For The Assessment Year 2013- 2014 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29/01/2016 & For The Assessment Year 2014-2015 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29.12.2016. Notice U/S.148 Of The Act For A.Y.2013-2014 Came To Be Issued On 28.03.2018 & For A.Y.2014-2015 The Notice Was Issued On 24.06.2019. The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Reason Recorded To Reopening For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 At Pages 47 To 51 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows:-

reopening of the assessment beyond four years are not satisfied. The reassessment was on change of opinion. There are no allegations

COLEN CHEMICAL PVT. LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.165 & 167/Ran/2025 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur 1St Floor, Room No.9, Tiwary Bechar Complex, Main Rd. Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcc 3978 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That For The Assessment Year 2013- 2014 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29/01/2016 & For The Assessment Year 2014-2015 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29.12.2016. Notice U/S.148 Of The Act For A.Y.2013-2014 Came To Be Issued On 28.03.2018 & For A.Y.2014-2015 The Notice Was Issued On 24.06.2019. The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Reason Recorded To Reopening For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 At Pages 47 To 51 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows:-

reopening of the assessment beyond four years are not satisfied. The reassessment was on change of opinion. There are no allegations

M/S P.K.UPADHYAY vs. ITO WARD-3(5), PALAMAU

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

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

reopened assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer perused the record and recorded a finding that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.5,11,164/- in the assets side of the balance-sheet on account of time extension, whereas the total amount of time extension comes to Rs.10,66,443/-. He noticed a discrepancy of Rs.5,55,280/- and accordingly

ABILITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,SAKCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.20/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ability Services Pvt. Ltd…….....................…...........................……….……Appellant 232 Kumhar Para, New Baradwari Sakchi, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aacce1395H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 09, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 18.12.2023 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’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Contract & Transportation & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.81,52,900/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Framed On A Total Assessed Income Of Rs.84,49,220/-. Subsequnetly, Proceedings U/S 148 Were Initiated Vide Notice Dated 30.03.2021 & Assessment Was Completed On 20.03.2022 Wherein The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Excess Depreciation Of Rs.36,64,657/- & Payment Of Epf/Esi Beyond The Due Date But Prior To Filing Of Return Of Rs.5,31,940/-

reassessment u/s 148 of the Act. The ld. AR also stated that as per proviso to section 147 where assessment has been completed u/s 143(3), no action can be taken u/s 147 after four years unless there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for the assessment

SRI DHRUB NARAYAN PARIHAST,DEOGHAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), DEOGHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: S/ S/Hri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2009-2010 Sri Dhrub Narayan Parihast, Sri Dhrub Narayan Parihast, Vs. Income Tax Office, Ward- Income Tax Office, Ward S/O. S/O. Shri Shri Deo Deo Narayan Narayan 3(1), Deoghar Parihast, Parihast, Dhanuk Dhanuk Tola, Tola, Jousagarhi, Deoghar. Jousagarhi, Deoghar. Pan/Gir No. .Bmrpp 9353 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv Poddar, Adv Revenue By : Shri Khub Chand Pandya,, Ld Sr Dr Revenue By , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/08/202 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2 2025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord Cit(A), Cit(A), Dhanbad Dhanbad Dated 19.9.2019 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Dhanbad/10147/2016 Dhanbad/10147/2016-17 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, Shri Devesh Poddar, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. Shri Appeared For The Assessee. Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Ld Sr Dr Ld Sr Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

reopening by holding as follows: “9. By going through the aforesaid definition it is abundantly clear that before opening any re-assessment proceedings the assessing Officer has to record reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. Now coming back to the case we have to analyze as to whether

ROSHAN MAHESHWARI,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO,WARD-3(5), CHAIBASA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reopening of assessment was bad in law and consequently, the assessment order passed in pursuance to the said notice is also bad in law and is required to be cancelled. 8. On the other hand, ld D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities. P a g e 4 | 7 ITA Nos.117 & 118/R an/2019 Ass essment Years

RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY,BOKARO vs. ITO, BOKARO

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.40&41/Ran/2020 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2013-14 Shri Radha Raman Tripathy.…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Plot No. F-9, City Centre, Sector-Iv, Bokaro Steel City. [Pan: Abhpt2232Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Bokaro….………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. R. Tripathy, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2020 & 19.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribagh [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence, These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.40/Ran/2020 For Assessment Year 2002-03 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Income Tax Return On 19.03.2004 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,56,420/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, It Came To The Of 1

reopening was made only on account of the assessee being joint account holder along with Shri Paramjee alias 2 I.T.A. Nos.40&41/Ran/2020 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2013-14 Shri Radha Raman Tripathy High Holiness. It is not in dispute that first account holder ‘Shri Paramjee alias High Holiness’ has already declared the said deposits in his income tax return

RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY,BOKARO vs. ITO, BOKARO

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.40&41/Ran/2020 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2013-14 Shri Radha Raman Tripathy.…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Plot No. F-9, City Centre, Sector-Iv, Bokaro Steel City. [Pan: Abhpt2232Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Bokaro….………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. R. Tripathy, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2020 & 19.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribagh [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence, These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.40/Ran/2020 For Assessment Year 2002-03 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Income Tax Return On 19.03.2004 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,56,420/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, It Came To The Of 1

reopening was made only on account of the assessee being joint account holder along with Shri Paramjee alias 2 I.T.A. Nos.40&41/Ran/2020 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2013-14 Shri Radha Raman Tripathy High Holiness. It is not in dispute that first account holder ‘Shri Paramjee alias High Holiness’ has already declared the said deposits in his income tax return