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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR vs. AJIT SINGH , SHIVPURI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ajit Singh, Ashoknagar, Village-Haatodh, Madhya Pradesh Post-Kota, Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ccnps7470K Assessee By : Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

reassessment was framed by the Learned JAO. 6. The Assessee filed detailed submissions before the Learned CITA, both on law as well as on facts. The Learned CITA obtained a remand report from the Learned AO. The Learned CITA, after due consideration of the remand report and rejoinder to the remand report, quashed the assessment as non-est by observing

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash Enclave

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash Enclave

BIPIN BAU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash Enclave

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash Enclave

TEJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

142(1) and section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) were not answered by the appellant. Thereafter, a show- cause notice under section 144 was issued by the AO. on 16.11.2016 and on its non-service through the speed post, ITI was deputed to serve it personally on the appellant. Vide his report dated 06.12.2016, the ITI has reported that Shri

BIKESH KUMAR,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(1) , FIROZABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbikesh Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nagla Bhoop Nasirpur, Ward-2(2)(1), Shikhabad Firozabad, Firozabad Firozabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bglpk0327A Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 14-12-2021, 2-2-2022 followed by final showcause notice dated 10-2-2022 for completion of assessment ex parte. Even for this, there was no response from the side of the assessee. This non-cooperative attitude of the assessee forced the Learned AO to complete the reassessment

YOGENDRA SHARMA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has declared income from salary of Rs.1,74,000/- and income from business of Rs.1,38,500/- against gross receipts of Rs.4,50,000/-. Besides above, the assessee has declared nil income from capital gains

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

142(1) and 143(2) from time to time to the assessee raising numerous queries and framed the assessment after considering the replies submitted by the assessee, the assessment order passed by the AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Principal CIT in exercise

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

142(1) and 143(2) from time to time to the assessee raising numerous queries and framed the assessment after considering the replies submitted by the assessee, the assessment order passed by the AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Principal CIT in exercise

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

142(1) and 143(2) from time to time to the assessee raising numerous queries and framed the assessment after considering the replies submitted by the assessee, the assessment order passed by the AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Principal CIT in exercise