Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

80 results for “reassessment”+ Section 148(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,091 Mumbai4,023 Chennai1,190 Kolkata984 Bangalore977 Ahmedabad867 Jaipur849 Hyderabad633 Pune551 Chandigarh378 Surat376 Indore302 Visakhapatnam296 Rajkot252 Amritsar248 Raipur230 Cochin180 Agra126 Lucknow123 Nagpur121 Cuttack117 Guwahati114 Patna114 Karnataka104 Ranchi80 Dehradun64 Telangana53 Jodhpur51 Allahabad49 Panaji31 Calcutta27 SC25 Jabalpur22 Varanasi13 Orissa9 Kerala9 Rajasthan7 Punjab & Haryana5 Himachal Pradesh2 Gauhati1 Madhya Pradesh1 Uttarakhand1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 148160 Section 147107 Addition to Income67 Section 143(3)63 Reassessment48 Section 153D44 Section 153A41 Section 15131 Limitation/Time-bar31 Search & Seizure

BADRINATH SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,ADITYAPUR, WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1 JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/RAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

148", "Section 131", "Section 145(3)", "Section 143(3)", "Section 142(1)", "Section 144" ], "issues": "1. Whether the reassessment proceedings

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

Showing 1–20 of 80 · Page 1 of 4

27

Reopening of Assessment25

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/RAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

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)

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Verma, A/RFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mohanti, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234CSection 263Section 37(1)

Section 148 since the Supreme Court in Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR. 1, while dealing with the action of the Assessing Officer to rectify a mistake and seeking to recompute and reassess

M/S S.P ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 33/RAN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: S/Shri S.K.Poddar/Devesh Poddar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

1).” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the original return of income for assessment year 2007-08 on 15.11.2007. Later on, notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 28.3.2012, which was served on the assessee on 29.3.2012. The ld A.R. of the assessee vide its letter dated 22.3.2013 submitted that the original

MARS MERCANTILES PVT.LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD, DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/RAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pranab Kr. Koley, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reassessment or recomputation, the Assessing Officer has to serve on the assessee a notice under sub-section (1) of section 148

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANCHI, JHARKHAND vs. AMBA CARBONISATION PVT. LTD., RANCHI, JHARKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.61/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito, Ranchi………..…………….…….…...................................……….……Appellant Vs. Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd ……....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 21, Ashok Bhawan, Kali Asthan Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand. [Pan: Aadca7460J] Appearances By: Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, 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 Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 15.01.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act & Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Special Smokeless Coal/Coke. The Assessee Also Derives Income By Way Of Interest On Bank Deposits. As Per Information Available With The Income-Tax Department, It Was Noticed That The Assessee’S Bank Accounts Reflected Substantial Cash Deposits, Which Were Allegedly Withdrawn Immediately Through Rtgs/Neft Transactions. It Was Further Observed That There Existed A Difference Between The Turnover Disclosed By The Assessee In The Return Of Income & The Total Credits Appearing In The Bank Accounts. On The Basis Of The Above Information, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Initiated Reassessment Proceedings By Issuing A Notice Under Section 148 Of The

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 273B

148 of the Act has been duly acknowledged by the AO in the assessment records. Prior to the reassessment, the assessee had filed its return of income under section 139 of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny, and assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed by order dated 14.10.2015, determining total income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/RAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

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)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 40

1-4-1989, section 147 of the Act, reads as under : "147. Income escaping assessment.—If the Assessing Officer, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153 , assess or reassess

HIRALAL AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 288/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) where appeal of the assessee was dismissed sustaining the order of the AO.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

1) of the Act, notice under Section 148 was issued on 11.08.2017 for reopening the completed assessment. During the reassessment

MAYUR RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,JHUMRITELAIYA vs. PCIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/RAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi02 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Mayur Rice Mills Private Limited Pr. Cit, Ranchi Gujhandi Road Vs Vill – Barwadih, Jhumritelaiya Pin - 825409 Pan : Aafcm5928H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukha, A/R Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Ranchi (Hereinafter ‘Ld. Pr. Cit’), Dated 30/03/2022, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Invalid Exercise Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr. Cit As The Revisionary Proceedings Are Hopelessly Barred By Limitation.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, CIT, D/R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

1)(vii), (viia) and the foreign exchange rate difference. The order of the Commissioner under section 263(2) had not been passed with reference to any issue which had been decided either in the order of the first reassessment or in the order of second reassessment but sought to revise issues decided in the first order of assessment passed under

MISRILALL JAIN & SONS,SINGHBHUM WEST vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.468/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Misrilall Jain & Sons….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M. D. House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aabfm2851Q] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 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 30.07.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

reassessment proceedings on the ground that the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act was confined only to the alleged escapement of income amounting to ₹1,32,63,010. It is an undisputed fact that the said amount was duly disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to the notice under section 148

KROSS LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. PCIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/RAN/2022[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

1)(vii), (viia) and the foreign exchange rate difference. The order of the Commissioner under section 263(2) had not been passed with reference to any issue which had been decided either in the order of the first reassessment or in the order of second reassessment but sought to revise issues decided in the first order of assessment passed under

ABHISHEK GOURASARIA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, consequential assessment order also stands quashed

ITA 43/RAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayabhishek Gourasaria, A.C.I.T., 118, Flat No. 2B, Surabhi Apartment, K Jamshedpur Vs. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001. Pan No. Adwpg 2149 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

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

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 139, Section 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 I.T.A. No.16/Ran/2024 Manish Agarwal requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 117/RAN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 234A

148 on 3.2.2016, which was not in accordance with the provisions of section 151(1) of the Act applicable at the relevant point of time, the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law and consequently, the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) is also bad in law and hence, same is cancelled. Therefore

SMITA,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 3(4),, CHAIBASA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

148 of the Act was issued to the assessee, the copy of approval granted under section 151 of the Act was not furnished to the assessee. Even the assessment order does not indicate that such approval was ever supplied or served upon the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in TIA Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

1. That the entire order under section 148 is null and and no prior approval was taken from the PCIT. 2. That the approval was never granted by the PCIT in first place and was only delegated to the ITO which is not permissible in law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, no satisfaction is recorded

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

1. That the entire order under section 148 is null and and no prior approval was taken from the PCIT. 2. That the approval was never granted by the PCIT in first place and was only delegated to the ITO which is not permissible in law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, no satisfaction is recorded

SUBIR MANDAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), CHAIBASA, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 188/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No. 188/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Subir Mandal,….…………………………………..Appellant 61, Parsudih, Pramathanagar, Jamshedpur-831001, Jharkhand [Pan:Anfpm1717N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-3(4), Chaibasa, 47, Ch Area, Jamshedpur-831001, Jharkhand Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

reassessment proceeding under section 148. However, notice u/s 148 and subsequent notices under section 142(1) could not be acted

BISHNU TRANSPORT COMPANY,DHANBAD vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, DHANBAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 401/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151oSection 68

148 of the Act and the consequent reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio. Once the reassessment itself is quashed on jurisdictional grounds, the additions made therein do not survive and are not required to be adjudicated on merits. 9. In view of the above facts and settled legal position

NAVEEN SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.413/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Naveen Singh………...…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M-9 Old, Adityapur Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Adkps4229A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. S. Paul, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, 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 Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017–18 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹43,99,340/- Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Accepting The Income As Declared. Subsequently, The Ao Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act After Recording Reasons & Obtaining Sanction From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Notice Under Section 148. Thereafter, Multiple Notices Under Section 142(1) Were Issued, Including Final Opportunity Notices, Which Were Duly Served But Remained Unanswered.

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

148. Thereafter, multiple notices under section 142(1) were issued, including final opportunity notices, which were duly served but remained unanswered. I.T.A. No.413/Ran/2024 Naveen Singh Even notices served physically through notice server did not evoke any response. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144, based on material available on record. The reasons recorded

SARYU DEVI,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RANCHI

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

ITA 251/RAN/2025[20-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.251/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Saryu Devi…..………...…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant W/O Hira Nath Singh, Neori, Vikas, Sadar Ranchi, Jharkhand- 835217. [Pan: Geppd1201D] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi…..….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhury, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025 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 10.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Lady, Residing In A Village Area. She Had Not Filed Any Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2021–22 As, According To Her, She Had No Taxable Income. The Assessee Was Not Registered On The Income-Tax E-Filing Portal During The Relevant Period. Her E-Filing Registration Was Done For The First Time On 09.03.2025. The Ao Received Information Through The Risk Management Strategy (Rms) That The Assessee Had Purchased Immovable Property For A Consideration Of ₹30,70,000. Based On This Information, Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Initiated After Following

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

Section 148 of the act was served upon the assessee and without serving notice assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law as assessee was not registered on the income-tax portal at the relevant time; hence, service through electronic mode was impossible and no notice was served by email, by speed post, or by personal delivery. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings