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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

10. In view of the above discussions and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we are of the considered view that the very initiation of reassessment proceedings, on the facts of this case and on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, is bad in law. We, therefore, quash the reassessment proceedings. As we have quashed

HARICHARAN RATHORE,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshharicharan Rathore, Vs. Ito, 125, Path Kheda, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Nagar, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Csqpr0999M Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

u/s 148 dated 31.03.2022 has been issued by JAO and not by the NFAC, there is per-se contravention of the provisions of the Act, thus violating the principles of Rule of Law, which vitiates the reopening of the assessment; and further pointed out that this legal issue raised by the assessee has been answered in favor of the assessee

BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

u/s 148 dated 31.03.2022 has been issued by JAO and not by the NFAC, there is per-se contravention of the provisions of the Act, thus violating the principles of Rule of Law, which vitiates the reopening of the assessment; and further pointed out that this legal issue raised by the assessee has been answered in favor of the assessee

NARAYANI RATHORE,SHIVPURI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnarayani Rathore, Vs. Assessment Unit, Peeroth Shivpuri, Income Tax Shivpuri, Mp Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dhgpr1886H

u/s 148 dated 31.03.2022 has been issued by JAO and not by the NFAC, there is per-se contravention of the provisions of the Act, thus violating the principles of Rule of Law, which vitiates the reopening of the assessment; and further pointed out that this legal issue raised by the assessee has been answered in favor of the assessee

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

u/s 148 dated 31.03.2022 has been issued by JAO and not by the NFAC, there is per-se contravention of the provisions of the Act, thus violating the principles of Rule of Law, which vitiates the reopening of the assessment; and further pointed out that this legal issue raised by the assessee has been answered in favor of the assessee

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

u/s 148 dated 31.03.2022 has been issued by JAO and not by the NFAC, there is per-se contravention of the provisions of the Act, thus violating the principles of Rule of Law, which vitiates the reopening of the assessment; and further pointed out that this legal issue raised by the assessee has been answered in favor of the assessee

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

38,000/- on the basis of stamp value under section 50C pending valuation report from the departmental valuer sought by A.O. is illegal and arbitrary.” 2. Apropos Ground No.2, according to the assessee, as is clear from the assessment order, no notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act was issued before completing the assessment proceedings u/s 147/143(3), though

BIJENDRA KUMAR,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

38 taxman.com 259 iii. (All). ‘M/s Ginni Filaments vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of iv. 2004 (All. H.C.) I.T.A Nos.409 & 419/Agra/2017 6 ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. v. Bench No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. DCIT’, ITA vi. No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur

GHANSHYAM ,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

38 taxman.com 259 (All). iii. ‘M/s Ginni Filaments vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of 2004 iv. (All. H.C.) I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 5 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. Bench v. No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur

GHANSHYAM ,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

38 taxman.com 259 (All). iii. ‘M/s Ginni Filaments vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of 2004 iv. (All. H.C.) I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 5 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. Bench v. No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur

ANITA YADAV,MATHURA vs. ITO -1(3)(1), MATHURA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

38 taxman.com 259 iii. (All). ‘M/s Ginni Filaments vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of iv. 2004 (All. H.C.) ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. v. Bench No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. DCIT’, ITA vi. No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar

AVNINDRA MISHRA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(3)(1), MATHURA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

38 taxman.com 259 iii. (All). ‘M/s Ginni Filaments vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of iv. 2004 (All. H.C.) ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. v. Bench No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. DCIT’, ITA vi. No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar

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)

10. We have considered rival submissions, material on records and the case laws relied up by both the parties. It was made clear to the parties that as the case is being heard in respect of ground No. 1 to 3, pertaining to validity of proceedings under section 147 of the Act based on reasons recorded and therefore, if such

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

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

u/s. 147 of the IT Act without recording satisfaction for initiation of proceedings in the matter. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Nath Singh vs. Appellate Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, 82 ITR 147 held – “The words “reason to believe” suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

38,966/- was undisclosed and should be added to the income of the Assessee and during the assessment proceedings the difference in closing stock was not added U/s 68 of the Act but net profit of Rs.19,90,13,469/- was assessed as income and therefore the assessment order dated 30.12.2017 passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s 147

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS ,FIROZABAD vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

38,966/- was undisclosed and should be added to the income of the Assessee and during the assessment proceedings the difference in closing stock was not added U/s 68 of the Act but net profit of Rs.19,90,13,469/- was assessed as income and therefore the assessment order dated 30.12.2017 passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s 147

RAJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO-3(3), MATHURA

In the result appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Raj Singh, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 3(3), Village- Kharaut Chhata, Mathura Mathura. Pan: Akvpr1777Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 148 without complying the provision of Section 148 (2)” The Hon’ble High Court held that “the plea with regard to the 11. jurisdiction of the Officer goes into the root of the matter, therefore, even if not raised at the first instance before the Assessing Authority, it can be raised before the Appellate Authority at a later stage