SURESH CHAND GUPTA,JHANSI vs. DCIT-6, JHANSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reopening of assessment u/s 147.The AO has recorded reason to believe u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961 as follows (APB-52). “In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act at total income of Rs. 2,90,52,820/- against the return income of Rs. 2,73,46,630/-. From the perusal of Balance

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reopening the assessment was not valid.” 18. In the case of ChunnilalPrajapatiVsITO 2011 (2) TMI 1522 the Lucknow Bench of the ITAT was required to adjudicate the legality of action under section 148, initiated on the basis of Report from the Investigation Wing that assessee had invested in purchase of immovable property, sources of which remained unexplained before the Investigation

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)

assessment to tax……..”. Therefore, the case is distinguishable on facts. 25. Learned Sr. D.R has placed reliance to Sri Banarsi Prasad vs CIT decided on 29 February, 2008, wherein no question of reopening was involved and the Hon’ble High Court , context of section 68

PREMWATI SUMAN,AGRA vs. ITO-1(3), AGRA

In the result both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Premwati Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnvps9819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri. Ranjeet Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnlps9622P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessing officer with jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act. The distinction noted by the learned CIT (A) is unconvincing and without any basis merely to circumvent and overcome the binding force of the referred decisions. ITAT, Delhi in the case of BirBahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO(2015) 68 SOT 197 (Delhi –Trib) wherein it was held

M/S CHARAN SINGH ICE & STORAGE P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reopening of the assessment was valid. As it is evident that the assessee in his return of income has not disclosed the of all the parties from whom share allotted application, invested amount, purchased have been made in the year under consideration and the mode of payment being adopted by the assessee for making payment to these purchase/invested parties. Therefore

M/S DEEPRAJ HOSPITAL P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reopening of the assessment was valid. As it is evident that the assessee in his return of income has not disclosed the of all the parties from whom share allotted application, invested amount, purchased have been made in the year under consideration and the mode of payment being adopted by the assessee for making payment to these purchase/invested parties. Therefore

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 147 of the Act by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are non est in law and without jurisdiction, hence, the re-assessment is quashed. Since we have already quashed the re-assessment, the other grounds have become academic and are therefore not adjudicated and accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.” I.T.A Nos.409 & 419/Agra/2017

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 147 of the Act by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are non est in law and without jurisdiction, hence, the re- assessment is quashed. Since we have already quashed the re- assessment, the other grounds have become academic and are I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 10 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 therefore not adjudicated and accordingly, the assessee

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 147 of the Act by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are non est in law and without jurisdiction, hence, the re- assessment is quashed. Since we have already quashed the re- assessment, the other grounds have become academic and are I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 10 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 therefore not adjudicated and accordingly, the assessee

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 147 of the Act by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are non est in law and without jurisdiction, hence, the re-assessment is quashed. Since we have already quashed the re-assessment, the other grounds have become academic and are therefore not adjudicated and accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.” I.T.A No. 441/Agra/2017

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 147 of the Act by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are non est in law and without jurisdiction, hence, the re-assessment is quashed. Since we have already quashed the re-assessment, the other grounds have become academic and are therefore not adjudicated and accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.” In the case

PREM LATA VERMA ,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 on the basis of information provided by assessee’s husband Shri Rajveer Singh in the affidavit filed before Election Commission of India during Election, 2019. According to the assessment order, the details of status of ITRs and taxable income declared in the affidavit

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

68,040/- Yours Faithfully, (Pratibha Singh) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-08, New Delhi” 11. From the above proposal, it is clear that the same is not accompanied by any assessment folder, seized material or any other related documents for completion of assessment. It means that before the Additional CIT, only a proposal vide letter F.No.ACIT/Central

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

68,040/- Yours Faithfully, (Pratibha Singh) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-08, New Delhi” 11. From the above proposal, it is clear that the same is not accompanied by any assessment folder, seized material or any other related documents for completion of assessment. It means that before the Additional CIT, only a proposal vide letter F.No.ACIT/Central

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

section 68 of IT Act and thus passing perverse order. 13. That Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in coming to conclusion that assessee had made full and true I.T.A No. 45/Agra/2015 5 disclosure before the AO at the time of assessment u/s 153A of the IT. Act. 14. That Ld. CIT (A) has erred

LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE P LTD,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

reopened the assessment solely on the basis of general nature of information received from DGIT(Inv.), New Delhi and his suggestion/dictatum without application of his mind so as to come to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and thus he has acted upon borrowed satisfaction, therefore the consequent reassessment made is invalid

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SARASWAT,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

assess it by invoking the provisions of section 147, issuance of notice u/s 148 is considered necessary, after having approval from Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-3 Mathura.” 3. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee relied on the following case laws: “a) Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO reported as (2015) 68 SOT 197 (Delhi -Trib

SATYADEV SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(4), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri Satyadev Singh, Village Vs..Ito,3,(4), Jaiswa, Post Bakla, Mathura. Mathura. Panno.Ahbps7182D (Assessee) (Revenue)

68 SOT 197 Delhi and (i) ‘Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan vs. ITO’, 108 ITD 115 (Agra). (ii) Though the assessee’s reliance on these decisions has been taken note of at 5. page 4 of the impugned order, they have not been dealt with by the ld. CIT(A). The issue raised by the assessee has, thus, not been decided