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

u/s. 148, vitiates the entire proceedings. In such state of affairs, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and the entire reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are liable to be quashed as void ab initio. 3.1 Reliance may be placed on the following decisions: (a) S. Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd., (2015) 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP HC) (SLP dismissed

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)

Section 147 of the Act, we find that the same would be applicable only if no assessment has been made earlier for the year which is sought to be reopened. In the instant case, the assessment has already been framed originally u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.12.2019 order of which is enclosed in page 381 of the Paper

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)

Section 147 of the Act, we find that the same would be applicable only if no assessment has been made earlier for the year which is sought to be reopened. In the instant case, the assessment has already been framed originally u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.12.2019 order of which is enclosed in page 381 of the Paper

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

147 of the Act. It is further noted that the approval granted by the competent authority is a mechanical approval and action has been taken mechanically because on perusing the I.T.A Nos.409 & 419/Agra/2017 7 reasons recorded, it demonstrates that Joint CIT has written “Yes, in view of reasons recorded by the AO, I am satisfied that this is fit case

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

147 of the Act. It is further I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 6 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 noted that the approval granted by the competent authority is a mechanical approval and action has been taken mechanically because on perusing the reasons recorded, it demonstrates that Joint CIT has written “Yes, in view of reasons recorded by the AO, I am satisfied that this

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

147 of the Act. It is further I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 6 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 noted that the approval granted by the competent authority is a mechanical approval and action has been taken mechanically because on perusing the reasons recorded, it demonstrates that Joint CIT has written “Yes, in view of reasons recorded by the AO, I am satisfied that this

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

147 of the Act. It is further noted that the approval granted by the competent authority is a mechanical approval and action has been taken mechanically because on perusing the reasons recorded, it demonstrates that Joint CIT has written “Yes, in view of reasons recorded by the AO, I am satisfied that this is fit case for issue of notice

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

147 of the Act. It is further noted that the approval granted by the competent authority is a mechanical approval and action has been taken mechanically because on perusing the reasons recorded, it demonstrates that Joint CIT has written “Yes, in view of reasons recorded by the AO, I am satisfied that this is fit case for issue of notice

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)

56,170/- 4. Before the learnedCIT(A) assessee raised various grounds regarding validity of re-opening and also submitted that the addition on merits has wrongly been made, furnished affidavits of self and his Father explaining that cash deposits in bank accounts represents cash realization from sale of agriculture produce, and which was deposited in bank account held jointly with

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA,AGRA vs. ITO, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

section 147 of the IT Act 1961 in the case of Shri Dinesh Chand Gupta, B-69 Trans Yamuna Colony, Agra in the assessment year 2008-09 and the escapement occurred due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- and even the tax audit

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

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

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 the approval granted by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1 , Agra (hereinafter referred to ld PCIT) in terms of section 151 of the Act are enclosed in pages 2 to 5 of the Paper

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

VISHNU SONI,SHIVPURI vs. ITO, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Mr. Vishnu Soni Ito, Ashok Nagar, Sadar Bazar, Vs. Aayakar Bawan, Shivpuri, Citiy Centre, Madhya Pradesh-473551 Gwalior, Madhya Pan-Awlps6188C Pradesh-474001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order by making addition of Rs.58,98,125/- being 50% in amount of investment made in acquisition of the immovable property (including the stamp charges) and further made addition of Rs.1,87,500/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being the difference between the sale consideration and the circle rate. Against such order, an appeal was filed

PAWAN AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment was later completed under Section 147 of the Act on 1-3-2025 determining total income of the Assessee at Rs. 8,52,110/- after making an addition of Rs. 5,50,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted cash payments made to Omaxe Group by the Assessee during the year under consideration. This action of the Learned

ACIT-CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. M/S FEDERAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

reassessment completed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) in respect of purchases of 'Raw Boneless Meat', which has been treated as bogus. The assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that no purchases of 'Raw Boneless Meat' have been made and, in fact, certain purchases have been made by the "HMA Agro Industries Ltd.", which is a separate assessee

ACIT,CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. M/S FEDERAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

reassessment completed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) in respect of purchases of 'Raw Boneless Meat', which has been treated as bogus. The assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that no purchases of 'Raw Boneless Meat' have been made and, in fact, certain purchases have been made by the "HMA Agro Industries Ltd.", which is a separate assessee

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. M/S FEDERAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

reassessment completed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) in respect of purchases of ‘Raw Boneless Meat’, which has been treated as bogus. The assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that no purchases of ‘Raw Boneless Meat’ have been made and, in fact, certain purchases have been made by the “HMA Agro Industries Ltd.”, which is a separate assessee