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

139(4) of the Act. Hence, the provisions of Explanation 2(a) of Section 147 of the Act kicks in. Accordingly, in order to frame any assessment, the ld AO should have issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on the assessee in the manner known to law, then proceed to frame the reassessment

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

reassessment proceedings are ex facie bad in law, being initiated without satisfying the conditions stipulated in first proviso to Section 147, and are thus liable to be quashed as void ab initio. The statutory conditions under the first proviso to Section 147 are that no action for reopening can be taken beyond four years unless there is a failure

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

reassessment proceedings are ex facie bad in law, being initiated without satisfying the conditions stipulated in first proviso to Section 147, and are thus liable to be quashed as void ab initio. The statutory conditions under the first proviso to Section 147 are that no action for reopening can be taken beyond four years unless there is a failure

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

139(1), declaring total income of Rs.8,16,230. Case of the assessee was reopened by the Revenue for framing reassessment by invoking provisions of section 147. Notice u/s. 148 dated 26.03.2019 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. The assessee submitted that return of income originally filed be treated as return of income filed in response

RATNESH KUMAR JAIN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ASHOK NAGAR, GWALIOR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with Id. CIT(Appeals), and raised as many as 25 grounds of appeal challenging the reassessment framed by theAO both on merits as well as on legal/jurisdictional grounds. The assessee submitted in statement of facts(SOF) that the assessee is regularly assessed to Income-tax since last so many years. He deals

VEERENDRA SINGH ,JALAUN vs. ITO,W 2(1)(5),ORAI, JALAUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kocharveerendra Singh, Income-Tax Officer, Vill. Dakor Mohana, Orai, Ward 2(1)(5), Orai, Distt. Jalaun (Up)-285001. V. Distt. Jalaun (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bbjps 3108 J Appellant .. Respondent

section 147 of the Act, and proceedings u/s 147 were initiated against the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued questionnaire to the assessee. The AO has recorded in the assessment order that the assessee filed his return of income on 16.7.2018 in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act as is emerging from the reassessment order passed by the Assessing

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

4. As further discussed by the AO in the assessment orders for all three assessment years, no return of income was filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and therefore, the AO issued notice u/s 144 of the Act to the then Managing Director of the Company, Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, twice, first

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

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

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

139(1) of the Act or response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. An information was received by the A.O. during the year under consideration, that the assessee had sold an immovable property for sale consideration of Rs. 50,40,273/-. The A.O. issued enquiry letter u/s 133(6) of the Act, but the deceased Assessee Late

PARMANAND,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD, 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

section 147/144B, despite the fact that the reasons recorded by Ld. AO are not in accordance with law." 4. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the first ground raised by the assessee deals with the preliminary legal issue and does not require any further facts to be gone into and goes to the root of the matter. Hence, prayed

SHRI NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

4 Act. The reply was filed almost ten months after the service of the notice under section 148 of the Act. As such, the return is a non est / void return, which may be treated as such. ‘CIT vs. Raman Chettiar’, 1965 AIR 1031 (SC) has been relied on to contend that filing of a valid return

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

139(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

SANSKAR NAGAR,JHANSI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

Appeals stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.351/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.352/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.353/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.354/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.349/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.346/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17; Smc Bench) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.347/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17; Smc Bench) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.348/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18; Smc Bench) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.350/Agr/2024

4) and therefore, no credence could be given to these statements. In other words, the incriminating material on which the additions have been made, has not been found from the assessee’s premises but the same has been found from a third-party premises. This being the case, this being unabated year, the assessment is liable to be quashed

S G COMMERCIAL,JHANSI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KANPUR

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

4) and therefore, no credence could be given to these statements. In other words, the incriminating material on which the additions have been made, has not been found from the assessee’s premises but the same has been found from a third-party premises. This being the case, AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 being unabated year, the assessment for both

S G COMMERCIAL,JHANSI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

4) and therefore, no credence could be given to these statements. In other words, the incriminating material on which the additions have been made, has not been found from the assessee’s premises but the same has been found from a third-party premises. This being the case, AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 being unabated year, the assessment for both

S G COMMERCIAL,JHANSI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KANPUR

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

4) and therefore, no credence could be given to these statements. In other words, the incriminating material on which the additions have been made, has not been found from the assessee’s premises but the same has been found from a third-party premises. This being the case, AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 being unabated year, the assessment for both

S G COMMERCIAL,JHANSI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, AGRA

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

4) and therefore, no credence could be given to these statements. In other words, the incriminating material on which the additions have been made, has not been found from the assessee’s premises but the same has been found from a third-party premises. This being the case, AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 being unabated year, the assessment for both

S G COMMERCIAL,JHANSI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KANPUR

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

4) and therefore, no credence could be given to these statements. In other words, the incriminating material on which the additions have been made, has not been found from the assessee’s premises but the same has been found from a third-party premises. This being the case, AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 being unabated year, the assessment for both