SHRI ATUL SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

u/s 147 of the Act fails no addition can be made on any other issues.He however finds the said proposition not applicable in the present case since , as per the Ld. PCIT, the AO’s order was erroneous in accepting assesses explanation on the issue for which reopening was resorted. As per the Ld. PCIT therefore

SMT. SARIKA SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

u/s 147 of the Act fails no addition can be made on any other issues.He however finds the said proposition not applicable in the present case since , as per the Ld. PCIT, the AO’s order was erroneous in accepting assesses explanation on the issue for which reopening was resorted. As per the Ld. PCIT therefore

CHANDRA PRAKASH GOPLANI,BENGALURU vs. ITO 2(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment order dated29.11.2019passed by Assessing Officer u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra reads as under : “1- BECAUSE the proceedings initiated u/s 147 and the notice issued u/s 148 is invalid, wrong, illegal, arbitrary, against

SHRI SIYARAM YADAV,MAINPURI vs. ITO 2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

undisclosed sources in the hands of the firm then very same income cannot be added again in the hands of the assessee. In this respect it is clarified that against the order of the Assessing Officer firm has filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeal) Gwalior which is still pending before the CIT (Appeals) Gwalior. Thus, on one side

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

undisclosed and should be added to the income of the Assessee and during the assessment proceedings the difference in closing stock was not added U/s 68 of the Act but net profit of Rs.19,90,13,469/- was assessed as income and therefore the assessment order dated 30.12.2017 passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act appears

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS ,FIROZABAD vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

undisclosed and should be added to the income of the Assessee and during the assessment proceedings the difference in closing stock was not added U/s 68 of the Act but net profit of Rs.19,90,13,469/- was assessed as income and therefore the assessment order dated 30.12.2017 passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act appears

DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. M/S VACMET PACKAGINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., AGRA

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reassess the above income.” 3. Against the said reasons and the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, the assessee had raised the following Ground No.2 (impugned order, page 2) before the ld. CIT(A): “Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice u/s

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

undisclosed income/income from other sources of the assessee company, which has not been offered to tax by the assessee till its return filed. On the basis of this new information, I have reason to believe that the income of Rs. 27,00,000/- has escaped assessment as defined by section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, this

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)

u/s 142(1) were issued from time to time which were partly replied by the legal heir of the assessee and finally the reassessment proceedings were completed vide order dt.09.03.2024 by making additions of Rs.78,88,849/- on account of bank deposits and interest from bank. The re-assessment order was passed in the name of father of assessee

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

undisclosed sources in the hands of the firm then very same income cannot be added again in the hands of the assessee. In I.T.A No. 74/Agra/2016 10 this respect it is clarified that against the order of the Assessing Officer firm has filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeal) Gwalior which is still pending before the CIT (Appeals) Gwalior. Thus

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

147 r.w.s 148 of the Act for re-opening the assessment for the A.Y. 2002-03 was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the requisite approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is mandatorily required, was not taken. Since 4 years had elapsed from the end of the relevant A.Y, the A.O u/s

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

147 r.w.s 148 of the Act for re-opening the assessment for the A.Y. 2002-03 was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the requisite approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is mandatorily required, was not taken. Since 4 years had elapsed from the end of the relevant A.Y, the A.O u/s

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

147 r.w.s 148 of the Act for re-opening the assessment for the A.Y. 2002-03 was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the requisite approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is mandatorily required, was not taken. Since 4 years had elapsed from the end of the relevant A.Y, the A.O u/s

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

147 r.w.s 148 of the Act for re-opening the assessment for the A.Y. 2002-03 was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the requisite approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is mandatorily required, was not taken. Since 4 years had elapsed from the end of the relevant A.Y, the A.O u/s

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

147 r.w.s 148 of the Act for re-opening the assessment for the A.Y. 2002-03 was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the requisite approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is mandatorily required, was not taken. Since 4 years had elapsed from the end of the relevant A.Y, the A.O u/s

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

147 r.w.s 148 of the Act for re-opening the assessment for the A.Y. 2002-03 was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the requisite approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is mandatorily required, was not taken. Since 4 years had elapsed from the end of the relevant A.Y, the A.O u/s

SARMAN RAI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(3), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same vide impugned order. 4. The assessee has filed this appeal before the tribunal on the following grounds : “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Authorities below have erred both on facts

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

undisclosed income, and overlooks the fact that the sources of deposit need not necessarily be income of the assessee. Of course, it may be desirable, from the point of (Asst. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) view of revenue authorities, to examine the matter in detail, but then reassessment proceedings cannot be resorted to only to examine the facts

SHRI RISHI KUMAR GUPTA,AGRA vs. CIT CIRCLE 1, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

undisclosed income computed by the AO. 6. The assessee has raised the issue before the ld. CIT(A) by way of written submission, which is reproduced at page no.4 Para 5.3 of the impugned order as under: “That the assessee received an interest on Income Tax refund to the tune of Rs.11,24,308 in the year in question. This