VISION & VISION PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACUT/ DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAMSHEDPUR
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 183/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.183/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vision & Vision Pvt. Ltd.…….……………............................……….……Appellant Block No.2, Ambika Tower, Main Road Shastri Nagar, Jamshedpur – 831005. [Pan: Aabcv5072B] Vs. Acit/Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur ..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit), Ranchi, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 31.03.2025 For A.Y. 2018–19. The Assessee Challenges The Legality & Validity Of The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Pcit & The Consequent Revision Of The Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Dated 27.03.2023. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018–19 Declaring Total Income Of ₹11,95,030. The Return Was Initially Processed U/S 143(1). Later, Based On Information Shared By The Ddit (Investigation), Kolkata, It Was Alleged That The Assessee Had Received An Accommodation Entry Of ₹1,18,61,425 From M/S Kuldeepak Enterprises During The Year. On This Basis, The Ao Reopened The
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263
12, 2025
Date of pronouncing the order : November 19, 2025
ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Ranchi, passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated
31.03.2025 for A.Y. 2018–19. The assessee challenges the legality
