THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

u/s,148 of IT Act in the case of assessee company is not a legal and valid notice in view of the provisions of section 150(2) of IT Act and consequently the re-assessment completed on the basis of such invalid notice is also void abinitio. Having considered the facts and law the contention of the appellant is found

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

142(1) and 143(2) through the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) platform, there was no compliance from the assessee. It is recorded that all communications were dispatched to the email address of the assessee’s erstwhile tax consultant, which was no longer active. As a result, there was no effective representation or submission from the assessee during the reassessment

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

142(1) and 143(2) through the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) platform, there was no compliance from the assessee. It is recorded that all communications were dispatched to the email address of the assessee’s erstwhile tax consultant, which was no longer active. As a result, there was no effective representation or submission from the assessee during the reassessment

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

142(1) and 143(2) through the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) platform, there was no compliance from the assessee. It is recorded that all communications were dispatched to the email address of the assessee’s erstwhile tax consultant, which was no longer active. As a result, there was no effective representation or submission from the assessee during the reassessment

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

142(1) and 143(2) through the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) platform, there was no compliance from the assessee. It is recorded that all communications were dispatched to the email address of the assessee’s erstwhile tax consultant, which was no longer active. As a result, there was no effective representation or submission from the assessee during the reassessment

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

142(1) and 143(2) through the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) platform, there was no compliance from the assessee. It is recorded that all communications were dispatched to the email address of the assessee’s erstwhile tax consultant, which was no longer active. As a result, there was no effective representation or submission from the assessee during the reassessment

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

u/s 148 of the Act and passed reassessment order within framework of the Act and such notice is a valid notice. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned AR before us contended that the notice under

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

u/s 148 of the Act and passed reassessment order within framework of the Act and such notice is a valid notice. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned AR before us contended that the notice under

SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

142(1) of the Act was duly served upon the assessee vide letter dated 8th September 1998 and thereafter the assessee and his authorized representative has made due compliances by way of personal attendance dated 16th September 1998. Thus it becomes evident that there was no objection raised by the assessee on the issuance of notice under section

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 147: Please note that the Reasons recorded u/s 147 was already forwarded to you through the letter dated 12.05.2016, it is clearly mentioned the reasons which leads to believe that income or profit or gains chargeable to Income-tax has escaped assessment. Objection No.2 : Jurisdiction for reassessment proceedings cannot be assumed on basis of reasons to suspect: The case

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 147: Please note that the Reasons recorded u/s 147 was already forwarded to you through the letter dated 12.05.2016, it is clearly mentioned the reasons which leads to believe that income or profit or gains chargeable to Income-tax has escaped assessment. Objection No.2 : Jurisdiction for reassessment proceedings cannot be assumed on basis of reasons to suspect: The case

ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

142(1) is affixed where and on what place and on what date and that it is not known whether the affixture is made as per Civil Procedure Code as provided in Section 282(l)(b). (e) On what date the Notice under Section 133(6) was served to the Court Receiver and that on what date

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

142(1) along with Para 4 Pg 7 of AO/Para questionnaire issued and requested to 7.1 Pg 44 of AO furnish on or before 31.08.2017 13. 29.08.2017 Letter by (A) to give details and copy of Para 7.2 of 44 of AO documents rather than furnishing what was asked for 14. 22.09.2017 (A) was furnished with bank statements Para

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

142(1) along with Para 4 Pg 7 of AO/Para questionnaire issued and requested to 7.1 Pg 44 of AO furnish on or before 31.08.2017 13. 29.08.2017 Letter by (A) to give details and copy of Para 7.2 of 44 of AO documents rather than furnishing what was asked for 14. 22.09.2017 (A) was furnished with bank statements Para

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

142(1) along with Para 4 Pg 7 of AO/Para questionnaire issued and requested to 7.1 Pg 44 of AO furnish on or before 31.08.2017 13. 29.08.2017 Letter by (A) to give details and copy of Para 7.2 of 44 of AO documents rather than furnishing what was asked for 14. 22.09.2017 (A) was furnished with bank statements Para

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

142(1) along with Para 4 Pg 7 of AO/Para questionnaire issued and requested to 7.1 Pg 44 of AO furnish on or before 31.08.2017 13. 29.08.2017 Letter by (A) to give details and copy of Para 7.2 of 44 of AO documents rather than furnishing what was asked for 14. 22.09.2017 (A) was furnished with bank statements Para

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

142(1) along with Para 4 Pg 7 of AO/Para questionnaire issued and requested to 7.1 Pg 44 of AO furnish on or before 31.08.2017 13. 29.08.2017 Letter by (A) to give details and copy of Para 7.2 of 44 of AO documents rather than furnishing what was asked for 14. 22.09.2017 (A) was furnished with bank statements Para

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

142(1) along with Para 4 Pg 7 of AO/Para questionnaire issued and requested to 7.1 Pg 44 of AO furnish on or before 31.08.2017 13. 29.08.2017 Letter by (A) to give details and copy of Para 7.2 of 44 of AO documents rather than furnishing what was asked for 14. 22.09.2017 (A) was furnished with bank statements Para