BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI 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.

94 results for “reassessment”+ Section 8clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,769Mumbai5,172Chennai1,633Bangalore1,396Kolkata1,276Ahmedabad1,036Jaipur941Hyderabad793Pune715Raipur501Chandigarh488Surat403Indore365Amritsar316Visakhapatnam310Cochin278Rajkot278Cuttack228Karnataka188Patna163Nagpur159Agra147Guwahati134Lucknow125Dehradun104Telangana96Ranchi94Jodhpur78Allahabad62SC45Panaji38Calcutta31Jabalpur23Orissa15Varanasi14Kerala11Rajasthan10Gauhati3Punjab & Haryana3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Himachal Pradesh2Uttarakhand1J&K1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Madhya Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 148127Section 14791Section 271(1)(c)83Addition to Income76Section 143(3)60Section 153A48Section 153D44Reassessment42Section 27432Section 151

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

reassessment notice under section 148 as well as order pursuant to said notice was to be quashed-Held Yes.” 7. On the other hand, ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities. 8

Showing 1–20 of 94 · Page 1 of 5

29
Disallowance27
Search & Seizure26

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

8. Since, in the present case of the assessee the very foundation of reopening, i.e., approval under section 151 of the Act, is invalid, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequent reassessment

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

section 151 was not furnished to the assessee. 7. The learned DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. 8

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)

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 order dated 15.11.2019, we note that the issue of equity shares at premium was not the subject matter of Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mayur Rice Mills Private Limited 8

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

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 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. 8

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)

8. Considering the facts of the case vis a vis the and the provisions of section 263(2) of the Act and also the citations made by the ld. Sr. Counsel before us, we are of the considered view that it is the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act which could be considered as erroneous

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

reassess the income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section.” 8

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

section 147, however, remain the same." [Emphasis supplied] 5. For the aforestated reasons, we see no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department, hence, dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. Respectfully following the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that the AO has reopened the assessment u/s.147

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)

reassessment on the ground that the notice under Section 148 dated 11.08.2017 was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year (A.Y. 2011–12), even though the original assessment had been completed under Section 143(3). The reasons recorded for reopening do not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully

KROSS LIMITED,ADITYAPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR

Accordingly, ITA No. 98/RAN/2025 is allowed

ITA 97/RAN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: the CIT(A) where appeal was dismissed on wrong facts.4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Section 147Section 148Section 68

reassessment proceedings were initiated on an incorrect assumption of facts without verifying the relevant accounting records. On examining the records, we find force in the submissions of the learned AR. The balance sheet and other supporting documents clearly demonstrate that the sum of ₹2,00,00,000/- represents the brought-forward balance of share application money received in financial year

KROSS LIMITED,ADITYAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR

Accordingly, ITA No. 98/RAN/2025 is allowed

ITA 98/RAN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: the CIT(A) where appeal was dismissed on wrong facts.4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Section 147Section 148Section 68

reassessment proceedings were initiated on an incorrect assumption of facts without verifying the relevant accounting records. On examining the records, we find force in the submissions of the learned AR. The balance sheet and other supporting documents clearly demonstrate that the sum of ₹2,00,00,000/- represents the brought-forward balance of share application money received in financial year

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 order making additions over and above the returned income is bad in law. Besides that the interest income of ₹4,75,23,253 arose from fixed deposits maintained as security with I.T.A. No.468/Ran/2025 Misrilall Jain & Sons Government departments such as Forest Department, Pollution Control Board and mining authorities for obtaining and renewing mining licences and contracts. No fresh deposits

SHRI SANJOG PRASAD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-3(1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 109/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi24 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.109/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Shri Sanjog Prasad, Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), H.No.493, B-Block, Sonari, Jamshedpur Jamshedpur-831011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acupp 8930 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur, Dated 14.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.50/Jsr/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2012- 2013. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Assessment Being Completed U/S 147/143(3) Is Ab Initio Void & Illegal. The Subject Matter For The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147 Was Already Considered & Looked Into During The Course Of Scrutiny Assessment U/S 143(3). As Such, This Initiation Can Only Be Said To Be Change Of Opinion. As Such, Proceeding Being Initiated U/S 147 Is Ab Initio Void, Illegal & Fit To Be Deleted. 2. For That The Authorities Below Were Not Justified In Not Considering The Objection Raised By The Appellant Regarding The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147. There Was No Fresh Material Available On Record With The Ld. Ao To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. As Such, The Proceeding Being Initiated Merely On Change Of Opinion Is Unjustified, Illegal & Fit To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234A

8 the 4 AO has reproduced the details available with him regarding cash deposit of Rs.18,03,000/- during the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2011, which pertains to assessment year 2011-2012 and the AO initiated reassessment proceedings for A.Y.2012-2013 on the basis of such information which was not related to the present assessment year which shows a clear non-application

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 is a jurisdictional requirement. In absence of valid service, the reassessment I.T.A. No.251/Ran/2025 Saryu Devi proceedings cannot be sustained. Therefore, we hold that the reassessment proceedings are invalid in law. 8

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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”).

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69C

8,09,714 under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment, comprising opening capital of ₹5,39,714 and opening stock of ₹2,70,000. Further, addition of ₹2,75,647 under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure on account of alleged difference in purchases. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned

SRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARDA,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT, C.C.-1, RANCHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 282/RAN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Jul 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sri Sanjay Kumar Sharda Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi / Barajamda, West Singhbhum, V/S. Jharkhand-833221. Pan No.Ahwps4875Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 271Section 271ASection 274

8 "It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. Opportunity

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR vs. BENKO TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 436/RAN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Cc, Jamshedpur…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, Block D, White House, Park Stree, Wb – 700016. [Pan: Aabcb1888R] Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Dated 25.09.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139 Of The Act Declaring A Total Income As Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 28.11.2017 Determining The Total Income At ₹9,88,28,406. Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Relating To Alleged Use Of Stock Exchange Platform (Bse/Nse) For Generating Fictitious Long-Term/Short-Term Capital Gains Through Certain Scripts & Alleged Accommodation Entries, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons Under Section 147 Of The Act. A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued The Assessee Filed Its Return Declaring The Same Income

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

reassessment proceedings the Ld. AO has not carried out any independent inquiry/verification to validate the allegation that undisclosed commission were paid to the broker over and above the STT charges & other charges paid by the assessee to the brokers which is shown in the ledger of the assessee company as well as in the contract notes issued by the brokers

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/RAN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(2)

Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re-open. 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

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 upon by the assessee. The assessee purchased an immovable property jointly owned along with his wife. The total consideration jointly paid was Rs.20,00,000/- where the assessee paid only a portion of consideration and the rest was paid

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/RAN/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Aug 2019

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

For Appellant: Shri D.C.Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, inter alia, adding Rs.24,91,524/- as sundry creditors. P a g e 2 | 8 ITA No.89/R an/2018 Ass essment Year : 2010 -2011 5. During the first appellate proceedings, a remand report was called for from the Assessing officer and the Assessing Officer submitted the remand report to the CIT(A), wherein