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

56 taxmann.com 390 (MP HC) (SLP dismissed in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC)) (b) ITAT Agra Bench order dated 28.03.2025 (ITA No. 258/Agr/2024) in Shri Anil Kumar Yadav vs. ITO 4.0 The perusal of the reassessment order dated 23.12.2019 reveals that the ld. Assessing Officer has acted against the appellant on the basis

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)

2(b) of 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

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)

2(b) of 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

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. I.T.A No. 441/Agra/2017 6 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: I.T.A No. 422/Agra/2017 6 ‘S. Narayanappa

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

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

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

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)

2(a) of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, notice under section 148 is being issued.” 23. Based on the above reproduced Reasons challenge was made by the assessee regarding the validity of re-opening. The ITAT while quashing notice under section 148 held as under: “From the above provisions, it is clear that the Assessing Officer must have

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

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA,AGRA vs. ITO, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

2. The ld. AR had submitted that in the present case, the assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed by the Assessing Officer on 01.12.2010, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.5,39,690/-. However, subsequently, the Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment for the following reasons : "In this case the assessee has filed original return on 30.09.2008 declaring total

USHA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. ITO 4(4), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

u/s 148 is considered necessary as it is a case of income escaping assessment, under the provision of section 147 of the Act. I.T.A No. 167/Agra/2018 4 Therefore, I have reasons to believe that an income chargeable to Capital Gains on the amount of Rs. 17,40,000/- a value taken for stamp duty escaped assessment subject to index cost

BHAGIRATH PAKHARIA,JHANSI vs. WARD 2 (3)(1), JHANSI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 23-03-2022. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and assailed the reassessment jurisdiction on the ground that reasons recorded to reopen the case of the assessee were defective. For the same, Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the reasons recorded by Ld. AO as extracted in the assessment order

BHAGIRATH PAKHARIA,JHANSI vs. WARD 2 (3)(1), JHANSI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 23-03-2022. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and assailed the reassessment jurisdiction on the ground that reasons recorded to reopen the case of the assessee were defective. For the same, Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the reasons recorded by Ld. AO as extracted in the assessment order

BHAGIRATH PAKHARIA,JHANSI vs. WARD 2 (3)(1), JHANSI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 23-03-2022. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and assailed the reassessment jurisdiction on the ground that reasons recorded to reopen the case of the assessee were defective. For the same, Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the reasons recorded by Ld. AO as extracted in the assessment order