LT. SHRI MRADUL GARG,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 and section 144, while determining the undisclosed income of the block period. It is thus evident that the procedure clearly contemplates the Assessing Officer giving a hearing to the assessee before making an assessment order in regard to the block period. 4.2 Clause (k) of section 246A provides for an appeal

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 and section 144, while determining the undisclosed income of the block period. It is thus evident that the procedure clearly contemplates the Assessing Officer giving a hearing to the assessee before making an assessment order in regard to the block period. 4.2 Clause (k) of section 246A provides for an appeal

SAURABH AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 and section 144, while determining the undisclosed income of the block period. It is thus evident that the procedure clearly contemplates the Assessing Officer giving a hearing to the assessee before making an assessment order in regard to the block period. 4.2 Clause (k) of section 246A provides for an appeal

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD, MATHURA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 and section 144, while determining the undisclosed income of the block period. It is thus evident that the procedure clearly contemplates the Assessing Officer giving a hearing to the assessee before making an assessment order in regard to the block period. 4.2 Clause (k) of section 246A provides for an appeal

SHRI NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2) of the Act, 1961”. In ‘CIT vs. Kalpaka Transport Co. Ltd.’, 287 ITR 15 (Ker), notice under 12. section 148 of the Act was issued on 17.01.1994. It was also served on 17.01.1994. The assessee sent letter dated 05.02.1994 to the AO, requesting that the return already filed be treated as filed in response to the notice under section

SARVESH KUMAR,FARRUKHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(2) FARRUKHABAD, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Kumar, Vs. Ito, Okharu Khanpur, Ward-4(2)(2), Farrukhabad, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad Ho 209601 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dsqpk3348G Assessee By : Shri Swaran Singh, Ca Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

2(a) of Section 147 of the Act kicks in. Accordingly, in order to frame any assessment, the ld AO should have issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on the assessee in the manner known to law, then proceed to frame the reassessment u/s 143(3)/ 144 r.w.s. Section 147 of the Act. I find this issue was subject

SHRI SIYARAM YADAV,MAINPURI vs. ITO 2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2) of the Act, 1961”. In ‘CIT vs. Kalpaka Transport Co. Ltd.’, 287 ITR 15 12. (Ker), notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 17.01.1994. It was also served on 17.01.1994. The assessee sent letter dated 05.02.1994 to the AO, requesting that the return already filed be treated as filed in response to the notice under section

MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT , FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

2) A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a) the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b) the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished

MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

2) A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a) the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b) the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished

PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

142(1) as well as show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act, show causing to the assessee that why deduction u/s. 11 may not be denied to the assessee as registration u/s. 12AA was granted vide order dated 14.09.2011 w.e.f. 01.04.2011, i.e., for the assessment year 2012-13, but the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 11 for the impugned

RADHIKA GARG,HATHRAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Radhika Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14/100, Kambhu Tola Ward-2(1)(3), Hospital Road, Hathras, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afepg2999H Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

142(1) of the Act due to non-cooperative attitude of the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings. Ultimately, the reassessment stood completed on 29-11-2019. It is pertinent to note that even though the assessee has filed the return belatedly on 22-11- 2019, post the filing of return by the assessee on 22-11-2019, admittedly

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

2 facts that reassessment proceedings initiated and consequential reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Act which are illegal and void for the reason - (a) that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without 3 demonstrating

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

2 facts that reassessment proceedings initiated and consequential reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Act which are illegal and void for the reason - (a) that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without 3 demonstrating

SARVESH DEVI (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MADAN LAL TOMAR),AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Devi (Legal Heir Vs. Income Tax Officer, Of Late Madan Lal Tomar), Ward-4(3)(1), 51, Keshavkunj Pratap Hathras Nagar, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Eshpd4540M Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025

reassessment framed u/s 144/ 147 of the Act on 30.01.2015. 4. The ld AR before us challenged the validity of framing of assessment in the name of deceased by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd reported in 416 ITR 613 wherein it was observed

SMT. VIDHYA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(4), AGRA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reassess the income of the assessee. However, in the present appeals, there is nothing on records to show that the respective A.O.s had applied their minds to form the requisite satisfaction after receipt of Report from ITO 4(1), Agra. Even the particulars of already filed Returns of Income are not mentioned in any of the reasons recorded

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

2 – 6):- “8. Let us, in the light of this legal position, revert to the facts of the case before us. All that the reasons recorded for reopening indicate is that cash deposits aggregating to Rs 10,24,100 have been made in the bank account of the assessee, but the mere fact that these deposits have been made

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. M/S WELCOME COIR INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reassessment orders. Clause (a) applies where after filing of return u/s 139(1), proceeding is initiated and not objected to within a month by the assessee calling in question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer after issuance of notice under section 142(1)/143(2

SH. YUGAL KISHOR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment by invoking provisions of section 147. Notice u/s. 148 dated 26.03.2019 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. The assessee submitted that return of income originally filed be treated as return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142