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 143(3) of the Act and Since the reassessment order dated 23.12.2019 has already been quashed as void on the ground of change of opinion, the reopening of assessment in the present case is also vitiated in law, having been initiated merely on a 22

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 143(3) of the Act and Since the reassessment order dated 23.12.2019 has already been quashed as void on the ground of change of opinion, the reopening of assessment in the present case is also vitiated in law, having been initiated merely on a 22

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

22-11-2019. The learned AO proceeded to complete the reassessment proceedings under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act after

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

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

reassessment proceedings after more than four years would be clearly barred by time. 22. A similar provision, namely, Section 34(1A)(ii) existed

PANKAJ SUJORIA,MANSAROVAR COLONY vs. ITO 1(1), GWL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Pankaj Sujoria, Vs. Ito, A-481, Mansarovar Ward-1(1), Colony, Shahpura, Gwalior Bhopal, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arzps0280L Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

reassessment stood completed under Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act on 22-11-2018 taxing the salary income received

SINGH CARRIERS,JHANSI vs. WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Singh Carriers, Ward-2(3)(1), 2716, Swamipuram Vs. Jhansi. Colony, Gwalior Road, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh-284003. Pan-Aacfs9607B (Appellant) (Respondent)

22,258/- u/s 69 of the Act by holding the credits in the bank account as unexplained money. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with ground of appeal No.1 to 6 taken on the merits of the additions, has set aside the issue back to the file of AO in terms of the powers conferred

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

22,99,968 respectively under section 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO regarding initiation of provision of penalty u/s 271(1) of I.T.Act

ANIL KUMAR,ETAH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), ETAH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on a preset mind, without any independent application of mind or without extraction of the taxable income. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts to uphold the impugned order passed by the learned Assessing

VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

reassessment shall be made by an Assessment Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 153A of the Act or the assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section 153B of the Act except the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. PUNEET AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

reassessment shall be made by an Assessment Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 153A of the Act or the assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section 153B of the Act except the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner

ACIT-CIRCEL-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. MAYANK AGRAWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

reassessment shall be made by an Assessment Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 153A of the Act or the assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section 153B of the Act except the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA vs. SH. VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL, AGRA

reassessment shall\nbe made by an Assessment Officer below the rank of Joint\nCommissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in Clause\n(b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 153A of the Act or the assessment year\nreferred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section 153B of the Act except the prior\napproval of the Joint Commissioner

JAY SINGH,MORENA vs. ITO-1, MORENA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Jay Singh, Vs. Ito, Gram Khaneta, Maharajpur, Ward-1, Morena, Madhya Pradesh Morena (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Cfwps1529H

reassessment proceedings, notice under section 142(1) of the Act stood issued to the assessee. Assessee, being an uneducated person and having no knowledge of operating the computer and income tax portal could not make compliance to the notices issued by the learned AO, which ultimately culminated in framing of assessment under section 144 read with 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

reassessment u/s 143(3)/ 144 r.w.s. Section 147 of the Act. I find this issue was subject matter of adjudication by the coordinate bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Dr Vijay Kumar Sarvesh Kumar Datla Vs. ACIT reported in 1996 (3) TMI 176 dated 28.03.1996. The relevant operative portion of the said order is as under

VIKAS CHANDRA HUF,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD-4(1)(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshvikas Chandra Huf, Vs. Cit(Appeals), D-117, Ramesh Vihar, Nfac, Delhi Ramghar Road, Aligarh Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakjv9476N Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

reassessment under section 148 of the Act. The said approval cannot be granted in a mechanical manner as it acts as a linkage between the facts considered and conclusion reached. In the instant case, merely appending the phrase "Yes" does not appropriately align with the mandate of Section 151 of the Act as it fails to set out any degree

PAWAN AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

reassessment notice, has to apply his\nmind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression 'approved'\nsays nothing. It is not as if the CIT (A) has to record elaborate reasons for\nagreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be\nrecorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. M/S FEDERAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

reassessment completed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) in respect of purchases of ‘Raw Boneless Meat’, which has been treated as bogus. The assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that no purchases of ‘Raw Boneless Meat’ have been made and, in fact, certain purchases have been made by the “HMA Agro Industries Ltd.”, which is a separate assessee

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