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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

u/s 133A was conducted on 22.04.2001 at the office premises of Sh. D.K. Agarwal, CA, 245, Madhav Kunj, Near Pratap Nagar, Agra. The survey party has reported that as many as 292 trusts and their funds are controlled by Sh. D.K. Agarwal. These trusts mostly show their addresses at 245- Madhav Kunj Agra or 41/67, Lohar Gali, Agra. On examination

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

35 Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment order. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either the JAO or the FAO in the Scheme dated 29th March, 2022, then

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

35 Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment order. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either the JAO or the FAO in the Scheme dated 29th March, 2022, then

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

35 Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment order. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either the JAO or the FAO in the Scheme dated 29th March, 2022, then

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

35 Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment order. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either the JAO or the FAO in the Scheme dated 29th March, 2022, then

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

35 Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment order. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either the JAO or the FAO in the Scheme dated 29th March, 2022, then

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

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

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

35 which relates to the addition of Rs.11,86,075/- in respect of unexplained investment in the construction of Hotel Haveli.” 2. The ld. AR has submitted that he has moved an application for additional ground vide letter dated 08.07.2019 and the same may kindly be admitted. Additional ground raised by the assessee provides as under : Because the so-called

D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD,MATHURA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

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

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

35 which relates to the addition of Rs.11,86,075/- in respect of unexplained investment in the construction of Hotel Haveli.” 2. The ld. AR has submitted that he has moved an application for additional ground vide letter dated 08.07.2019 and the same may kindly be admitted. Additional ground raised by the assessee provides as under : Because the so-called

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD, MATHURA

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

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

35 which relates to the addition of Rs.11,86,075/- in respect of unexplained investment in the construction of Hotel Haveli.” 2. The ld. AR has submitted that he has moved an application for additional ground vide letter dated 08.07.2019 and the same may kindly be admitted. Additional ground raised by the assessee provides as under : Because the so-called

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

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

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

35 which relates to the addition of Rs.11,86,075/- in respect of unexplained investment in the construction of Hotel Haveli.” 2. The ld. AR has submitted that he has moved an application for additional ground vide letter dated 08.07.2019 and the same may kindly be admitted. Additional ground raised by the assessee provides as under : Because the so-called

SAURABH AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

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

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

35 which relates to the addition of Rs.11,86,075/- in respect of unexplained investment in the construction of Hotel Haveli.” 2. The ld. AR has submitted that he has moved an application for additional ground vide letter dated 08.07.2019 and the same may kindly be admitted. Additional ground raised by the assessee provides as under : Because the so-called

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

35 which relates to the addition of Rs.11,86,075/- in respect of unexplained investment in the construction of Hotel Haveli.” 2. The ld. AR has submitted that he has moved an application for additional ground vide letter dated 08.07.2019 and the same may kindly be admitted. Additional ground raised by the assessee provides as under : Because the so-called

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

II, Agra through Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Range-5, Firozabad for seeking approval to issue notice u/s 148 of Income tax Act, 1961.” 4. Per contra, the Ld. D.R ShriWaseemArshad, made a preliminary objection submitting that assessee since had not challenged the validity of notice under section 148 of the Act at any stage before the authorities below therefore

SARVESH DEVI (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MADAN LAL TOMAR),AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Devi (Legal Heir Vs. Income Tax Officer, Of Late Madan Lal Tomar), Ward-4(3)(1), 51, Keshavkunj Pratap Hathras Nagar, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Eshpd4540M Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025

reassessment framed u/s 144/ 147 of the Act on 30.01.2015. 4. The ld AR before us challenged the validity of framing of assessment in the name of deceased by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd reported in 416 ITR 613 wherein it was observed

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

ii). The original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order, dated 09.04.2021, wherein, the addition of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- was made on account ‘excess salary’ paid to two employees u/s 40A(2b) of the Act. The said assessment was then subject matter of reassessment u/s 148 based on the reason to believe of the AO that

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

ii). The original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order, dated 09.04.2021, wherein, the addition of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- was made on account ‘excess salary’ paid to two employees u/s 40A(2b) of the Act. The said assessment was then subject matter of reassessment u/s 148 based on the reason to believe of the AO that

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

ii). The original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order, dated 09.04.2021, wherein, the addition of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- was made on account ‘excess salary’ paid to two employees u/s 40A(2b) of the Act. The said assessment was then subject matter of reassessment u/s 148 based on the reason to believe of the AO that

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

ii). The original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order, dated 09.04.2021, wherein, the addition of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- was made on account 'excess salary' paid to two employees u/s 40A(2b) of the Act. The said assessment was then subject matter of reassessment u/s 148 based on the reason to believe of the AO that