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.

3,323 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi564Mumbai499Ahmedabad272Chennai249Jaipur234Bangalore179Hyderabad165Pune140Kolkata131Chandigarh105Rajkot96Indore93Amritsar89Visakhapatnam77Surat66Raipur58Nagpur57Cochin43Patna40Guwahati38Agra37Lucknow22Jodhpur22Cuttack17Allahabad13Jabalpur4Varanasi4Panaji4Dehradun3Ranchi2

Key Topics

Section 148147Section 14796Addition to Income85Section 139(1)45Reassessment41Section 13240Section 6939Search & Seizure37Section 143(3)36Section 69A

MR. JATIN HARISH SOTTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 26(1)(7), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1916/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Jatin Harish Sotta, Ito Ward 26(1)(7), A-16, Ajanta Apartment, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bkc, Murar Road, Mulund West, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400080. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aqfps 6009 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Chothani, CA
Section 144Section 147Section 69A

147 of the IT Act 1961 after taking necessary approval u/s 151(1) of the after taking necessary approval u/s 151(1) of the I.T. Act 1961. I.T. Act 1961. Notice u/s 148 of the IT. Act 1961 dated 31.03.2019 was issued Notice u/s 148 of the IT. Act 1961 dated 31.03.2019 was issued Notice u/s

Showing 1–20 of 3,323 · Page 1 of 167

...
36
Section 153C36
Cash Deposit32

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2878/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, the AO noted that the fact of cash deposit to the bank account

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2880/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, the AO noted that the fact of cash deposit to the bank account

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2881/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, the AO noted that the fact of cash deposit to the bank account

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2877/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, the AO noted that the fact of cash deposit to the bank account

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2879/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, the AO noted that the fact of cash deposit to the bank account

RUBY SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2875/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, the AO noted that the fact of cash deposit to the bank account

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2876/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, the AO noted that the fact of cash deposit to the bank account

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 988/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHA LAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80C

147 of the chargeable to tax is not represented in the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2015-16. form of an asset, or expenditure or an entry in the books of accounts, extended period of 10 year cannot be resorted to the by AO. 4. In the present case, the Ld. AO directly The transaction made by the assessee

MONIKA CHAKARVARTY,KOTA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, CIRCLE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 413/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 412 & 413/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2017-18 Monika Chakarvarty Prop. M/s Vipin Medicals, Nayapura, Kota. cuke Vs. DCIT Circle, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AELPC 3801 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.), Shri Sorabh Harsh (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anup Singh (Ad

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

147 of the Act. Subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued, the assessee field the return however the return was not signed therefore the return was declared invalid and hence notice u/s 143(2) of the Act could not be issued. The AO in the assessment order observed that there was a cash deposit

MONIKA CHAKARVARTY,KOTA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

147 of the Act. Subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued, the assessee field the return however the return was not signed therefore the return was declared invalid and hence notice u/s 143(2) of the Act could not be issued. The AO in the assessment order observed that there was a cash deposit

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

ITA 1618/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

deposited cash. In the list prepared where the name of theassessee is at Sl. No.06 where the amount appearing is Rs.1,49,42,,000/- is appearing and it is included in the total disclosuremade by Shri. D. S. Nandish. It clearly shows that for ITA Nos.1617 and 1618/Bang/2024 Page 16 of 45 recording reasons for escapement of income

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

ITA 44/RJT/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 263 of the Act, and directed the assessing officer to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have been left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly, assessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on further appeal by assessee, before

ZIA RATHI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-44(3), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1881/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalmrs. Zia Rathi, Income Tax Officer, 274, Dda Flats, Sector-1A, Ward-44(3), Dwarka Nasirpur, Vs. Delhi. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Bsvpr9218M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 27.02.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 15/11146/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Sole Proprietor Of M/S Veezee Traders Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Pvc Coated Imported Fabric. The Zia Rathi Vs. Ito

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

reassessment order to have been made substantially from the cash sale of Rs8,60,62,562/- effected by the appellant. (1) In fact, foremost argument of the assessee is that this case was reopened u/s 147 also, after passing the impugned assessment order for bringing to tax the cash deposits

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

ITA 16/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

u/s 263 of the Act, and directed the assessing officer to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have been left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly, assessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on further appeal by assessee, before

SUKHPAL SINGH,GREATER NOIDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3)(5), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1080/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

147 of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee did not respond to the statutory notices issued by the AO. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment u/s 144/147 of the Act at Rs. 30,66,000/- by treating cash deposits of Rs. 30,66,000/- as unexplained money and added the same to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved against

SANJAY SIVABHAGWAN KEYAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal Ito, Ward – 2(3)(4), Flat No.304, 3Rd Floor, Room No.613, Vatika Township, Near Model, Vs. Aaaykar Bhavan, Township, Parvat Patia Majura Gate, Surat - 395010. Surat - 395002. Pan No. Adspk 6097N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rasesh, CA
Section 144Section 148Section 69A

147 read with section 144 of the Act on 30.09.2016, bringing to tax the entire cash deposit of bringing to tax the entire cash deposit of ₹13,91,936/ 13,91,936/- as unexplained credits. 3. In In In appeal, the assessee contended before appeal, the assessee contended before the learned appeal, the assessee contended before the learned the learned

ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIR.-1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. MAHABIR PRASAD GUPTA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 2302/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

147 of the Act after issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, ld. AO noticed that during the year there is a cash deposit of Rs. 1,73,77,481/-. Though, during the course of proceedings before the lower authorities it was submitted that the source of alleged cash deposit in cash in hand available with the assessee, however

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

ITA 31/RJT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

cash deposits. The assessee, on the other hand is\nassailing the confirmation of 30% of cash deposits, in addition to other legal grounds\nregarding not considering assessee, as an Angadia, not adopting peak balance in the\nbank account, not giving credit/ benefit of telescopic effect of intangible addition and\nnot considering decision relied upon by the assessee etc. The Learned

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

ITA 46/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

u/s 263 of the Act, and directed the\nassessing officer to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have\nbeen left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly,\nassessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on\nfurther appeal by assessee, before