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)

section 147 of the Act mandates that exclusively the satisfaction of the assessing authorities based on some direct and relevant material could lay the foundation for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. According to the appellant, the AO has not applied his own mind and hence the assessment is not justified. 7 I have considered all the facts

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 was initiated within the four year period from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, the first proviso to section 147 has no application and the Tribunal's finding to the contrary is factually incorrect. Amended provisions of section 147 effective from 1-4-1989 authorize income escaping assessment If the Assessing Officer

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

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 vide DIN ITBA/AST/M/147/2019-20/1019376913(1). 2. Grounds of appeal raised by assessee in memo of this appeal filed with the Tribunal read as under : Asst Year: 2012-13 Yugal Kishor Agarwal “1) That the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the order of Learned Assessing

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

12 | P a g e ITA No.344 & 343/Agr/2025 2.10 That the reasons, recorded in the present case too, are completely lacking to indicate as to what material facts were not disclosed fully and truly by the assessee so as to assume jurisdiction u/s. 147 after expiry of four years. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirement under the first proviso to Section 147

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

12 | P a g e ITA No.344 & 343/Agr/2025 2.10 That the reasons, recorded in the present case too, are completely lacking to indicate as to what material facts were not disclosed fully and truly by the assessee so as to assume jurisdiction u/s. 147 after expiry of four years. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirement under the first proviso to Section 147

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reassessing income under Section 147 of the Act would not arise." 33. In Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P) Limited (supra), it was held that "...the impugned notices must also be set aside as the AO had no reason to believe that the income of the Assessee for the relevant assessment years had escaped assessment. Concededly, the AO had no tangible material

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

147 of the Act. Therefore, if Revenue's arguments are to be accepted, there is no purpose of framing a Scheme only for clause 3(a) which is in any event already covered under faceless assessment regime in Section 144B of the Act. The argument of respondent, therefore, renders the whole Scheme redundant. An argument which renders the whole Scheme

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

147 of the Act. Therefore, if Revenue's arguments are to be accepted, there is no purpose of framing a Scheme only for clause 3(a) which is in any event already covered under faceless assessment regime in Section 144B of the Act. The argument of respondent, therefore, renders the whole Scheme redundant. An argument which renders the whole Scheme

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

147 of the Act. Therefore, if Revenue's arguments are to be accepted, there is no purpose of framing a Scheme only for clause 3(a) which is in any event already covered under faceless assessment regime in Section 144B of the Act. The argument of respondent, therefore, renders the whole Scheme redundant. An argument which renders the whole Scheme

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

147 of the Act. Therefore, if Revenue's arguments are to be accepted, there is no purpose of framing a Scheme only for clause 3(a) which is in any event already covered under faceless assessment regime in Section 144B of the Act. The argument of respondent, therefore, renders the whole Scheme redundant. An argument which renders the whole Scheme

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

147 of the Act. Therefore, if Revenue's arguments are to be accepted, there is no purpose of framing a Scheme only for clause 3(a) which is in any event already covered under faceless assessment regime in Section 144B of the Act. The argument of respondent, therefore, renders the whole Scheme redundant. An argument which renders the whole Scheme

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

12. Then, section 147 also provides that the Assessing Officer, if he has reason to believe escapement of income, he may assess or reassess such income subject to the provision of sections 148 to 153 of the Act. So, the assessment or reassessment u/s

CHANDRA PRAKASH GOPLANI,BENGALURU vs. ITO 2(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as well raising challenge to the additions made on merits of the issue before ld. CIT(A), wherein as many as 11 grounds of appeal were raised before ld. CIT(A). I have also observed that the CIT(Appeals) has not made any enquiry during the 10 | P a g e course of appellate proceedings

PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

147 of the Act on the ground that registration u/s. 12AA was granted effective from 01.04.2011, i.e., assessment year 2012-13, but the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act for the impugned assessment year, i.e., 2010-11. There was no compliance by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as well as in the first appellate proceedings. Both

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

12. The CIT(A) has correctly observed that the provisions of section 124(3) are not applicable in the present case, because both clauses (a) & (b) of the said section are not applicable for the three reassessment orders. Clause (a) applies where after filing of return u/s 139(1), proceeding is initiated and not objected to within a month

DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. M/S VACMET PACKAGINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., AGRA

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

12. That Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in quashing the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) by substituting his own satisfaction in place of AO's satisfaction required in term of section 68 of IT Act and thus passing perverse order. 13. That Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in coming to conclusion that

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

147 of the Act read with sec. 143(3) of the Act, notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory. In the absence of notice u/s 143(2), it is obvious that no further proceedings can be continued for assessment u/s 143 and without such a notice, the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction and this I.T.A No. 117/Agra/2017 4 defect cannot

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)

section 251(1) (a) of the Act and direct the AO to pass the assessment order afresh after considering the replies and documents filed by the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the jurisdictional issues raised by the assessee with regard to initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act which was challenged before