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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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.

148(2). This, however, will not obviate the bar of limitation under section 263(2). The invocation of the jurisdiction under section 263(2) was barred by limitation”. 9. In the instant case before us also the issue on which the ld. PCIT proposed the revision of reassessment

KROSS LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. PCIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

148(2). This, however, will not obviate the bar of limitation under section 263(2). The invocation of the jurisdiction under section 263(2) was barred by limitation”. 9. In the instant case before us also the issue on which the ld. PCIT proposed the revision of reassessment

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassess such income, which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other income, chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section; and (iv) though the notice under section 148(2

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)

148 is being issued.” Thus, it is abundantly clear that reassessment proceedings under section 147/143(3) of the Act has commenced by the AO after four years.We also note that as per reassessment order under section 147/143(3) of the Act the reassessment proceedings was claimed to be started by assessing officer on 24.12.2014 which is also beyond four years

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)

2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is, whether the concept of "change of opinion" stands obliterated with effect from 1-4-1989, i.e., after substitution of section 4 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 ? 3. To answer the above question, we need to note

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

148 though delayed, has been taken into account, it is incumbent upon the Ld. AO to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) which otherwise vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. Requirement of issuing notice u/s. 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings undertaken by the Ld. AO and the impugned reassessment order passed thereafter are liable

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

148 though delayed, has been taken into account, it is incumbent upon the Ld. AO to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) which otherwise vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. Requirement of issuing notice u/s. 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings undertaken by the Ld. AO and the impugned reassessment order passed thereafter are liable

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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”).

148 of the Act can be framed only on the issues stated in the show-cause notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act and no addition beyond such issues is permissible in law. Respectfully following the said binding precedent, we hold that the reassessment framed on issues beyond the scope of the notice issued under section 148A

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

148 of the Act was issued on 11.08.2017, i.e., beyond four years from the end of A.Y. 2011–12, and the reasons recorded do not mention any failure on the part of the assessee, the reopening is barred by limitation and invalid in law. 9. Accordingly, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2018–19 declaring total income of ₹6,07,870. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on the ground that the assessee had sold a flat for a consideration of ₹30 lakhs, whereas the stamp duty value

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

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”).

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 proceedings and allow the appeal of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Kolkata, the 10th February, 2026. [Ratnesh Nandan Sahay] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated

M/S HEAVEN CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-!(1), RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 226/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Heaven Construction & Engineering –Vs- Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabch 9922 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment notice u/s 148 was not issued to the Principal officer of the assessee company M/s Premier Implements and Equipments Pvt. Ltd. the said notice was not a valid notice in accordance with the section 282(2

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.229/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arvind Kumar Mishra… ….…………….……...................……….……Appellant 22/20, Mishra Niwas, Kharangajhar, Near Hanumanmandir Road Telco, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831004. [Pan: Agdpm2983R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)…………………...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 04, 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 02.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

148, the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹2,34,920 from business, with gross receipts of ₹1,06,82,530. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued and the assessment was completed I.T.A. No.229/Ran/2024 Arvind Kumar Mishra under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act. During the assessment proceedings

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

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

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

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 Officer shall-- (a) issue notice to such person requiring

ABHISHEK GOURASARIA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, consequential assessment order also stands quashed

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

2. CIT v. India Terminal Connector System-Ltd. ITA No. 6430 of 2011. 3. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal V. Income-tax Officer (1993) 203 ITR 456 SC: 4. CIT V. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95; Sec 153C read as under- "Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayι.Τ.Α. No.414/Ran/2025

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of trading in iron and steel. For the assessment year 2011–12, it filed its return of income declaring total income of ₹1,14,389. A survey under section 133A was conducted on 22.03.2018 at the business premises of the assessee. During