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

section 147 of the Act is invalid. The reassessment proceedings are vitiated in law and consequential reassessment order, being not sustainable is liable to be quashed. The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed. 15

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

section 147 of the Act is invalid. The reassessment proceedings are vitiated in law and consequential reassessment order, being not sustainable is liable to be quashed. The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed. 15

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

15. The aforesaid reasons do not satisfy the requirements of Section 147 of the Act. The reasons and the information referred to is extremely scanty and vague. There is no reference to any document or statement, except Annexure, which has been quoted above. Annexure cannot be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie shows or establishes nexus

ANURAG MITTAL ,FIROZABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reassessment passed under clause (b) of section 153A in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. The provision has also been made applicable to orders of assessment passed under clause

RAJESH LADHANI,FAIZABAD vs. DCIT CC , AGRA

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaita No. 106,107 & 108/Agra/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Vs. Dy. C.I.T. –Central Circle, Rajesh Ladhani, 259, Savera Bhawan, Ram Nagar Colony, Agra. Faizabad. Pan: Abapl5646C (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment passed under clause (b) of section 153A in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. The provision has also been made applicable to orders of assessment passed under clause

SOURABH JAIN,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Saurabh Jain, Guna. 1, Near Sanjeevani Vs. Hospital Garha Colony, Guna, Madhaya Pradesh-473001 Pan-Bgjpj7915F (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 as well as not dealt to addition of 4,83,15,217/- made

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 order u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) dated 24.10.2019, the Assessing Officer made two additions – firstly, disallowance of Rs.12,15

JAWAHAR LAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reassessment…………………u/s 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice…………………” Section 148 (1), again, uses the expression ‘Assessing Officer’ which, as 14. considered above, is the expression defined in section 2(7A), to mean the authority exercising the relevant jurisdiction. Since the ACIT-1, Agra, did not have jurisdiction over the matter, he could

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

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

section 151, the initiation of reassessment proceedings after more than four years was clearly barred by time.” 15. The ratio

LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE P LTD,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

reassessment. In support, the Ld.AR relied on the following authoritative decisions: 1. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6 Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi High Court) 2. Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer (2011) 338 ITR 51 (High Court of Delhi) 15 3. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 Vs. G & G Pharma India

SH. MANOJ GOYAL,AGRA vs. DY CIT ,CC, AGRA

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.185/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.186/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.187/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.188/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Manoj Goyal बनाम/ Dcit Central Circle 22, Nehru Nagar, Agra – 282002 Agra Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Abcpg-3816-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA." 11. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made

SH. MANOJ GOYAL,AGRA vs. DY CIT,CC, AGRA

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.185/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.186/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.187/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.188/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Manoj Goyal बनाम/ Dcit Central Circle 22, Nehru Nagar, Agra – 282002 Agra Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Abcpg-3816-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA." 11. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made

SH. MANOJ GOYAL ,AGRA vs. DY CIT,CC,, AGRA

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.185/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.186/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.187/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.188/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Manoj Goyal बनाम/ Dcit Central Circle 22, Nehru Nagar, Agra – 282002 Agra Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Abcpg-3816-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA." 11. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made

SURESH CHAND GUPTA,JHANSI vs. DCIT-6, JHANSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

15. In the case of CIT vs. Popular Vehicles (supra) para 5 it was observed that by explanation 2 to section 147 of the Act…………. “5. Here again, we have to clarify that the Tribunal has wrongly assumed that reassessment

SH. SANJEEV PARASHAR,ALIGARH vs. I.T.O., WARD-1, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri Sanjeev Parashar Vs..Ito, Ward -1, A-6, Mahavir Park, Extension, Aligarh. Aligarh. Panno.Ajopp3902F (Assessee) (Revenue)

reassessment, make a reference to a Valuation Officer to estimate the value, including fair market value, of 4 any asset, property or investment and submit a copy of report to him. (2) The Assessing Officer may make a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or completeness

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

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

section 124, nor sustainable under law, having been passed without jurisdiction in view of a defective order passed u/s 127 of the Act. 15. The CIT(A) cannot be said to have gone wrong in observing that the jurisdiction of the assessee Company was never transferred u/s 127 of the Act to the DCIT/ACIT(Central Circle), Agra and thus

DEEPAK KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O SHRI LATE RATAN LAL AGRAWAL,TIKAMGARH vs. ITO, TIKAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Deepak Kumar Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward No. 12, Purani Tikamgarh Tehsil, New Housing Board, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Axapa3069L Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

15,25,500/- be not added to the total income as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. No response was filed by the Assessee thereon and accordingly, the learned AO completed the reassessment