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 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 25.03.2023 by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, the preliminary issue to be decided is whether the assumption of jurisdiction for reopening

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

section 148 is a must.” 5. Since in the instant case, the assessment has been framed u/s 144 of the Act on 28.11.2019 based on unsigned notice u/s 142(1) notice dated Sarvesh Kumar 29.03.2018, and no reassessment u/s 147

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

section 147 were invoked. The re-assessment being framed without issuing notice u/s 143(2). The Id. CIT(A) did not adjudicated the legal grounds raised by the assessee. On merits, it is claimed that additions are made of Rs.1,28,13,500/- without proper examination of facts and without application of mind. It is also claimed that Reassessment order

SONU JAIN THROUGH LEGAL HEIR AND FATHER OF LATE SONU JAIN SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN ,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 09.03.2024. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the AO has information that assessee has made large cash deposit into the bank accounts amounting to ₹64,90,000 and no return of income was filed. He therefore, proceeded to re-open the assessment and issued notice u/s 148A(a) in the name

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARUKHABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.03.2022 wherein an addition of Rs. 1,23,46,358/- being the amount of unsecured loan added u/s 68 of the Act. 12. At the outset, we find that the reasons recorded by the ld AO for reopening the assessment are very very vague and does

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARRUKHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4(2)(1) FARRUKHABAD, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.03.2022 wherein an addition of Rs. 1,23,46,358/- being the amount of unsecured loan added u/s 68 of the Act. 12. At the outset, we find that the reasons recorded by the ld AO for reopening the assessment are very very vague and does

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

144 of the Act, in which, he took the returned income of the assessee for all the three assessment years as “NIL", because no return was filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and in the “NIL” income, further addition for unexplained deposits in the two bank accounts had been made for all the three assessment years

RAJESH TYAGI,AMBAH vs. ITO WARD 1, MORENA, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Assessment Unit, S/O Laxmi Narayan Tyagi Gavri National Faceless Assessment Service, Gulab Ka Pura Ambah Centre, Income Tax Officer, Distt. Morena Ward-1, Morena Pan : Bmmpt3132K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sandeep, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Act is bad in law, invalid and void-ab-initio. 7. BECAUSE under the facts and circumstance and in law the Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 5,60,000/-on account of unexplained money for cash deposit in bank under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE

SOURABH JAIN,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Saurabh Jain, Guna. 1, Near Sanjeevani Vs. Hospital Garha Colony, Guna, Madhaya Pradesh-473001 Pan-Bgjpj7915F (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 r.w.s. 144 as well as not dealt to addition of 4,83,15,217/- made under Section 69A, along with the consequential interest and penalty levied. Hence be decided appeal after directing to whole proceedings against of law. 9. That the appropriate order for granting justice and relief be passed. 10. Your appellant reserves its right

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

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

144 in the name of Shri Tej Singh represented by his three sons as legal heirs. This notice, too, was returned by the posts department with the remark that "the recipient had died and hence returned". The same notice in the name of Shri Tej Singh represented by his three sons as legal heirs had to be therefore served through

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

144 of the I.T. Act, the return filed in response to notice u/s 148, though filed beyond time allowed in notice u/s 148, has to be taken as considered by the Assessing officer and hence the Assessment Order passed without issue of notice u/s 143(2) deserves to be cancelled. 2 | P a g e 3. (i). That

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

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Reassessment noticewas thus held to be rightly quashed by the ITAT. It is not understood as to what purpose it (Asst. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) serves for the revenue to rely upon this Judgement rendered in favour of the assessee. The case of‘M/s Kays Jewels Private Ltd. vs Union of India’, inWrit 27. Tax No. 721 of 2015by

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR vs. AJIT SINGH , SHIVPURI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ajit Singh, Ashoknagar, Village-Haatodh, Madhya Pradesh Post-Kota, Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ccnps7470K Assessee By : Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

144 read with section 147 of the Act on 30-3- 2022. This assessment was framed by the Learned JAO, Income Tax Officer, Ajit Singh Ashok Nagar. It is pertinent to note that both the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Learned JAO and reassessment was framed by the Learned JAO. 6. The Assessee filed

CHAND KHAN,SADA SHIV NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(2) , CITY CENTER

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

147 read with section 148 of the Act, and notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2019 was issued by the AO to the assessee seeking to reopen the concluded assessment. There was no response from the assessee to the notice u/s. 148. Further, statutory notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were also issued to the assessee in the reassessment proceedings

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)

147 of the Act to be invoked, the reasons must indicate that the Assessing officer has applied his mind to the fact that income is chargeable to tax under the Act and it has exceeded maximum amount not chargeable to income Tax. The Hon’ble Court found notice to be without jurisdiction as the satisfaction was not found

PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

144 of the Act, show causing to the assessee that why deduction u/s. 11 may not be denied to the assessee as registration u/s. 12AA was granted vide order dated 14.09.2011 w.e.f. 01.04.2011, i.e., for the assessment year 2012-13, but the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 11 for the impugned assessment year 2011-12 to the tune of Rs.5

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. LT. SHRI MRADUL GARG, MATHURA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [subsection (1) of] section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner]." The above provisions u/s