VEERENDRA SINGH ,JALAUN vs. ITO,W 2(1)(5),ORAI, JALAUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kocharveerendra Singh, Income-Tax Officer, Vill. Dakor Mohana, Orai, Ward 2(1)(5), Orai, Distt. Jalaun (Up)-285001. V. Distt. Jalaun (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bbjps 3108 J Appellant .. Respondent

147 were initiated against the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued questionnaire to the assessee. The AO has recorded in the assessment order that the assessee filed his return of income on 16.7.2018 in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act as is emerging from the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. So far as merits of the additions

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

unexplained, for which reason the case of the assessee was reopened. It was pointed out to the Ld.PCIT that the assessee had explained to the AO 10 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 that the said investments were duly reflected in her Balance Sheet and the source of investment therein therefore duly disclosed. That therefore there was no question

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

unexplained, for which reason the case of the assessee was reopened. It was pointed out to the Ld.PCIT that the assessee had explained to the AO 10 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 that the said investments were duly reflected in her Balance Sheet and the source of investment therein therefore duly disclosed. That therefore there was no question

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed\nassessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated\nassessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material\nfound during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of\nthe Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed\nassessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated\nassessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material\nfound during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of\nthe Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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.

unexplained investment. Therefore, the Ld. DR submits that the contention of the assessee that the order passed by the AO is subject matter of appeal before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) and no proceedings u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated is not acceptable. The Ld. DR submits that the PCIT has rightly assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 on issues which

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.

unexplained investment. Therefore, the Ld. DR submits that the contention of the assessee that the order passed by the AO is subject matter of appeal before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) and no proceedings u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated is not acceptable. The Ld. DR submits that the PCIT has rightly assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 on issues which

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)

147 and the same enquiry have been referred in the case of the Md. Irfan. Though, it is very established that, this is not a case of lack of enquiry, therefore it is mere a change of opinion of the Ld. PCIT in invoking the provisions of section 263 read with Explanation 2 clause (a) and since adequate

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)

147 and the same enquiry have been referred in the case of the Md. Irfan. Though, it is very established that, this is not a case of lack of enquiry, therefore it is mere a change of opinion of the Ld. PCIT in invoking the provisions of section 263 read with Explanation 2 clause (a) and since adequate

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)

147 and the same enquiry have been referred in the case of the Md. Irfan. Though, it is very established that, this is not a case of lack of enquiry, therefore it is mere a change of opinion of the Ld. PCIT in invoking the provisions of section 263 read with Explanation 2 clause (a) and since adequate

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

147 and\nthe same enquiry have been referred in the case of the Md. Irfan. Though,\nit is very established that, this is not a case of lack of enquiry, therefore it\nis mere a change of opinion of the Ld. PCIT in invoking the provisions of\nsection 263 read with Explanation 2 clause (a) and since adequate and\ndue

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

147 and\nthe same enquiry have been referred in the case of the Md. Irfan. Though,\nit is very established that, this is not a case of lack of enquiry, therefore it\nis mere a change of opinion of the Ld. PCIT in invoking the provisions of\nsection 263 read with Explanation 2 clause (a) and since adequate and\ndue

PAWAN KUMAR CHAUHAN,MAINPURI vs. ITO- WARD 2 (5) , AGRA, AGRA

147, addition was made to the income of\nthe assessee on account of investment made in fixed assets amounting\nin all to Rs.15,45,867/- during the year. The Assessing Officer had\nreopened the case of the assessee on the basis of information in his\npossession that the assessee had purchased immovable property during\nthe year of Rs.3

KRIPA RAM VYAS,GWALIOR vs. ITO, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Kripa Ram Vyas, Vs. Ito, Pgv College, Jiwaji Gwalior Ganj, Lashkar Ho, Gird, Gwalior -474001 Pan: Abupv2129C Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025

u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of unexplained investment in mutual funds. Even before the NFAC, no representation was made by the assessee as he is not conversant with the electronic notices sent to him due to lack of computer knowledge, which eventually lead to ex parte order

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

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

investment for purchase of\nimmovable property needs to be verified. Therefore, the same should be taxable in\nthe hand of the assessee as provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961 and reopening of case\nu/s 147 of IT, Act, 2961 is necessary at this stage.\n4. In view of the facts, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable

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

investment for purchase of immovable property needs to be verified. Therefore, the same should be taxable in the hand of the assessee as provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961 and reopening of case u/s 147 of IT, Act, 2961 is necessary at this stage. 4. In view of the facts, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable