LAL BAHADUR SINGH,DHANBAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD
In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed
ITA 103/RAN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2009-10
Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.90 To 94/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2008-2009 To 2012-2013) Shri Kumbh Nath Singh, Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Dhanbad Simla Bahal Cilliery, Jharia, Dhanbad-828111 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Bcpps 1598 K & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.268 & 269/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2010-2011 & 2012-2013) Acit, Central Circle, Dhanbad Vs Shri Kumbh Nath Singh, Simla Bahal Cilliery, Jharia, Dhanbad-828111 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Bcpps 1598 K & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.95 To 99/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2008-2009 To 2012-2013) Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Dhanbad Shri Bharat Singh, Simla Bahal Cilliery, Jharia, Dhanbad-828111 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Bcpps 1599 J & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.100 To 106/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2006-2007 To 2012-2013) Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Dhanbad Shri Lal Bahadur Singh, Simla Bahal Cilliery, Jharia, Dhanbad-828111 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aydps 0747 D & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.265 To 267/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2010-2011 To 2012-2013) Acit, Central Circle, Dhanbad Vs Shri Lal Bahadur Singh, Simla Bahal Cilliery, Jharia, Dhanbad-828111 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aydps 0747 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate & Shri Sanjay Chatterjee, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None(Adjournment Petition Filed) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025
For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: None(Adjournment Petition filed)
Section 153ASection 153D
153A.”
[Emphasis supplied]
31
ITA Nos.90-106/Ran/24
ITA Nos.265-269/Ran/24
12. It is observed that the Court in the case of Sapna Gupta (supra) refused to interdict the order of the ITAT, which had held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act therein was granted without any independent application of mind. The Court took a view that the approving