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

2. The point-wise reply to the objection raised for AY 2010-11 in your case is as follows: Objection No.1 : Non satisfaction of pre-condition for invoking the provisions of 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

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

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

151. The assessee’s cases were subsequently selected for reassessment. However, despite issuance of multiple statutory notices under sections 148, 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

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

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

151. The assessee’s cases were subsequently selected for reassessment. However, despite issuance of multiple statutory notices under sections 148, 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

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

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

151. The assessee’s cases were subsequently selected for reassessment. However, despite issuance of multiple statutory notices under sections 148, 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

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

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

151. The assessee’s cases were subsequently selected for reassessment. However, despite issuance of multiple statutory notices under sections 148, 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

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

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

151. The assessee’s cases were subsequently selected for reassessment. However, despite issuance of multiple statutory notices under sections 148, 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

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

u/s 148 therefore cannot arise where the person concerned has no knowledge of the proceeding initiated. Being a jurisdictional notice, these defects cannot be termed as mere irregularities which can be cured by participation of the assesses/legal heirs, even as per the aforementioned decisions of the jurisdictional High Court.The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.V Doshi

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

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 initiated based upon documents

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

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 initiated based upon documents

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

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 initiated based upon documents

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

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

u/s 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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

u/s 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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

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

u/s 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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

u/s 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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

u/s 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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

u/s 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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

u/s 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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

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

u/s 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended