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

reassess income under section 147 of the Act is under the obligation to issue a valid notice under section 143(2) of the Act. In case the AO ITA Nos.37-38/AHD/2021 A.Y.s 2008-09 & 2017-18 22 has not done so, the order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act becomes invalid. In the present case

SHIVGANGA PROPERTY HOLDERS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

Reassessment Return Filing Date in 05/12/2017 On 03/04/2017 Response to Notice u/s Assessee requested to 148 treat the original return as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 Total Income Declared Rs. Nil Rs. Nil in Return Filed in Response to Notice u/s 148 Date of AO’s Order 30/12/2017 29/12/2017 Section Under Which 143(3) r.w.s. 147

THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI VIGHNAHARTA REALITY PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

Reassessment Return Filing Date in 05/12/2017 On 03/04/2017 Response to Notice u/s Assessee requested to 148 treat the original return as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 Total Income Declared Rs. Nil Rs. Nil in Return Filed in Response to Notice u/s 148 Date of AO’s Order 30/12/2017 29/12/2017 Section Under Which 143(3) r.w.s. 147

ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVGANGA PROPERTY HOLDERS PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

Reassessment Return Filing Date in 05/12/2017 On 03/04/2017 Response to Notice u/s Assessee requested to 148 treat the original return as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 Total Income Declared Rs. Nil Rs. Nil in Return Filed in Response to Notice u/s 148 Date of AO’s Order 30/12/2017 29/12/2017 Section Under Which 143(3) r.w.s. 147

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

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

u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section

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

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

u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section

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

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

u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section

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

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

u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section

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

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

u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. ANILKUMAR OCHHAVLAL DESAI, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

reassessment. A notice issued under section 148 of the Act against a dead person is invalid, unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection. Therefore, where the legal representative does not waive his right to a notice under section 148 of the Act, it cannot be said that the notice issued against

WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceeding by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 07.06.2021. Thereafter, as per the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No.3005/2022) dated 04.05.2022, the Assessing Officer had issued notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 25.05.2022. Subsequently, the order under

WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceeding by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 07.06.2021. Thereafter, as per the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No.3005/2022) dated 04.05.2022, the Assessing Officer had issued notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 25.05.2022. Subsequently, the order under

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

147 as valid when reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s 148 as invalid as AO ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the Act as proceedings have been

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

147 as valid when reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s 148 as invalid as AO ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the Act as proceedings have been

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

147 as valid when reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s 148 as invalid as AO ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the Act as proceedings have been

WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceeding by\nissue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 07.06.2021. Thereafter,\nas per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India\nand Ors. vs Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No.3005/2022) dated\n04.05.2022, the Assessing Officer had issued notice under Section\n148A(b) of the Act on 25.05.2022. Subsequently, the order under

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 147/151(1) of the Act in para 9- 11 of his reason for reopening of assessment u/s. 148. The ld. D.R. further pointed out that the grounds challenging issuance of notice u/s. 148 was also taken before the ld. CIT(A) which was dealt in detail by the appellate authority. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 147/151(1) of the Act in para 9- 11 of his reason for reopening of assessment u/s. 148. The ld. D.R. further pointed out that the grounds challenging issuance of notice u/s. 148 was also taken before the ld. CIT(A) which was dealt in detail by the appellate authority. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision

AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 147/151(1) of the Act in para 9- 11 of his reason for reopening of assessment u/s. 148. The ld. D.R. further pointed out that the grounds challenging issuance of notice u/s. 148 was also taken before the ld. CIT(A) which was dealt in detail by the appellate authority. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision