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

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

reassessment of income of the other person would be in accordance with the provisions of section 153A and also relied upon the judgments of "Supreme Court" in the case that the block period proceedings u/s 153C of the Act has to be computed from the date of receipt of books of accounts or documents

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

56 taxmann.com 390 (MP HC) (SLP dismissed in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC)) (b) ITAT Agra Bench order dated 28.03.2025 (ITA No. 258/Agr/2024) in Shri Anil Kumar Yadav vs. ITO 4.0 The perusal of the reassessment order dated 23.12.2019 reveals that the ld. Assessing Officer has acted against the appellant on the basis

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

56 taxmann.com 390 (MP HC) (SLP dismissed in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC)) (b) ITAT Agra Bench order dated 28.03.2025 (ITA No. 258/Agr/2024) in Shri Anil Kumar Yadav vs. ITO 4.0 The perusal of the reassessment order dated 23.12.2019 reveals that the ld. Assessing Officer has acted against the appellant on the basis

USHA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. ITO 4(4), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

1)(b) of the Act. It has been pointed out that the ITAT, Agra Bench, in the case of ‘Pataria 8. Vs. ITO’ (APB 56-73), in ITA No. 29/Agra/2015, had the occasion to deal with an identical case, where the AO, while recording the reasons, did not specify the quantum of income alleged to have escaped assessment; and that

SMT. BINA WADHWA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

1. Because the Ld. Assessing Officer has taken approval of Ld CIT-1, Agra for issue of notice under section 133(6), evident from the Assessing Order, and no approval has been taken for issue of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, hence reopening of case without valid approval of Joint Commissioner

GOVIND SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

reassessment proceedings deserve to be quashed.” 3. The additional ground as preliminary issue raised by the appellant assessee, challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act by the ld A.O. being passed on mechanical approval u/s. 151 of the Act, goes to the root of the matter. We deem it fit to address the same first

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

1) of the Act for AY 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs. 34,590/-. Based on the information received from the investigation wing, the ld AO reopened the assessment of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act vide issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.3.2024. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment together with the approval

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)

56,381/- in valuation of property on estimated basis. 7. Because the Id. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant had started construction of building w.e.f. 6- 01-2009 to 31-10-2010 and hence cost of construction should be bifurcated in respective assessment years.” 3 2. The following additional grounds have also been taken: (i) Because

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

56,407/- The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 11.07.2012, declaring total income of Rs.8,16,230/-. Case of the assessee was reopened by the Revenue for framing reassessment by invoking provisions

M/S RADHARANI JEWELLERS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

1. The appeal in ITA No. 6/Agr/2026 is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) , Kanpur-4 [hereinafter referred to as the Learned CITA] in Appeal No. CIT(A)-IV/KNP/12105/2016-17 dated 4-11- 2025 against the order passed by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle, Agra [hereinafter referred to as the Learned

M/S RADHARANI JEWELLERS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

1. The appeal in ITA No. 6/Agr/2026 is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) , Kanpur-4 [hereinafter referred to as the Learned CITA] in Appeal No. CIT(A)-IV/KNP/12105/2016-17 dated 4-11- 2025 against the order passed by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle, Agra [hereinafter referred to as the Learned

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment was later completed under Section 147 of the Act on 1-3-2025 determining total income of the Assessee at Rs. 8,52,110/- after making an addition of Rs. 5,50,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted cash payments made to Omaxe Group by the Assessee during the year under consideration. This action of the Learned

PUSHPA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(2)(3), MATHURA

In the result,both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Pushpendra Singh. Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Dldps6755P (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Pushpa Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Bcopd0484L (Appellant) (Respondent)

56,170/- 4. Before the learnedCIT(A) assessee raised various grounds regarding validity of re-opening and also submitted that the addition on merits has wrongly been made, furnished affidavits of self and his Father explaining that cash deposits in bank accounts represents cash realization from sale of agriculture produce, and which was deposited in bank account held jointly with

RAJANI SAHU,GWALIOR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, ASHOK NAGAR, GWALIOR

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 420/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) Smt. Rajani Sahu Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Karera, Near Kali Mai Mandir, Ashok Nagar, Gwalior. Shivpuri Road Vs. Karera, Shivpuri (Mp). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ehpps-3090-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deependra Mohan, Ca - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 21-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 27-04-2023. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Deemed Income U/S 56(2)(Vii)(B) For Rs.48.90 Lacs. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Same Against Which The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. 2. The Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Raised A Pertinent Legal Issue Assailing Legality Of Reassessment Proceedings. It Has Been Stated That This Year Is Covered By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Ibibo

56(2)(vii)(b) for Rs.48.90 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The Ld. AR, at the outset, raised a pertinent legal issue assailing legality of reassessment proceedings. It has been stated that this year is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Anju Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D-26, Kamla Nagar, Ward-2(1)(1), Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awtpa4297L Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

reassessment stood completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23-3- 2024 determining total income of the Assessee at Rs. 56,35,106/- after making an addition of Rs. 49,98,136/-, which stood upheld by the Learned NFAC. Anju Agarwal 4. At the outset, we find that the identical issue had been adjudicated by this Tribunal