SANGITA DEVI SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C.C., DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C.C., DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

PARAS KUMAR SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C. C., DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

AAKRITI SARAWGI,,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

SUNILA DEVI SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C. C. , DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

RAJESH BADRI PD. MODI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

KANTA DEVI SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C.C., DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

SAMIR KUMAR SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C. C., DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

M/S ANJENEYA ISPAT LTD.,SARAIKELA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, CIRCELE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, 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), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2017 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 The Assessment Year 2019–20 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹62,64,116. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Relevant Previous Year, A Survey Operation Under Section 133A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 16.02.2019. Subsequently, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished Various Details & Documents As Called For. The Same Were Examined & Discussed By The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During

69, as the assessee failed to produce supporting evidence. I.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 M/s Anjeneya Ispat Ltd 2. Unutilized CENVAT of ₹20,55,972, which was added back under section 145A of the Act. Consequently, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹2,26,64,752. 3. On appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The issues relating

SALUJA STEEL AND POWER PVT. LTD.,,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C, C., DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

68), Unexplained Investments (Section 69), Unexplained Money (Section 69A), Amount of Investment, etc. not fully disclosed in books

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and finally, the Assessing Officer vide the impugned penalty order imposed a penalty of ₹ 69,68

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and finally, the Assessing Officer vide the impugned penalty order imposed a penalty of ₹ 69,68

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue\nis dismissed

68,09,200/- being 150% of the total tax sought\nto be evaded. Being aggrieved with the penalty order, an appeal was filed\nbefore CIT(A) who vide the impugned order dated 15/03/2024, partly\nallowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) NFAC though\ndismissed the legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued U/s\n274 r.w.s

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

68,09,200/- being 150% of the total tax sought to be evaded. Being aggrieved with the penalty order, an appeal was filed before CIT(A) who vide the impugned order dated 15/03/2024, partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) NFAC though dismissed the legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued U/s 274 r.w.s

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

68,00,000/- (vii) IICM Expenses ₹ 2,40,00,000/- (viii) Depreciation on Lease Hold Land ₹ 8,74,00,000/- (ix) CSR Expenses ₹ 15,52,00,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 2,01,52,25,826/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

68,00,000/- (vii) IICM Expenses ₹ 2,40,00,000/- (viii) Depreciation on Lease Hold Land ₹ 8,74,00,000/- (ix) CSR Expenses ₹ 15,52,00,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 2,01,52,25,826/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with

SRI KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH,DALTONGANJ vs. ACIT,CIR-1, RANCHI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 49/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh,...................................Appellant Hamidganj, Daltonganj-822101 [Pan: Bbjps0426B] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-1, Ranchi & I.T.A. Nos. 53 & 54/Ran/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh,...................Appellant Hamidganj, Daltonganj-822101 [Pan: Afzps8288J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-1, Ranchi Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.K. Koley, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 7Th, 2023 1 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh & Ita Nos. 53 & 54/Ran/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kr. Singh

68,50,000/- made on the ground that certain properties were purchased by son and daughters of the appellant, investment of which, was not disclosed and accordingly on substantive basis addition was made u/s 69. No protective assessment was made in the case of persons in whose names properties were purchased. Purchase of the properties was duly disclosed

SANJEEV SABLOK,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WD-1(4), JSR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.147/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sanjeev Sablok, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), 4, I.C.Road, Circuit House Area Jamshedpur Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Adkps 4050 M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Choudhary, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

Section 68 of the Act. The letters sent by the Assessing Officer were returned unserved. Once the letters issued by the Assessing Officer returned unserved, it was the duty of the assessee to comply the notice but he could not do so. Further the AR of the assessee has produced bank statements before the Tribunal only for a short