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

15 the provisions of section 150 of the Act and therefore the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act cannot be held as invalid. 28.1 It was also contended by the ld. DR that the return was filed in response to the notice vide letter dated 28-05-2019 and therefore, it cannot

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

15 the provisions of section 150 of the Act and therefore the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act cannot be held as invalid. 28.1 It was also contended by the ld. DR that the return was filed in response to the notice vide letter dated 28-05-2019 and therefore, it cannot

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?

15. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 159 of the Act provides that any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived may be taken against the legal representative. The present case would, therefore, fall within the ambit of section 159(2)(b) of the Act and, hence, the proceeding can be taken

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing ground challenging validity of reassessment proceedings by AO without recording contents or details of transactions reflected in seized papers for forming belief as to escapement of undisclosed income. 3 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confirming validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings in absence

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

15. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 159 of the Act provides that any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived may be taken against the legal representative. The present case would, therefore, fall within the ambit of section 159(2)(b) of the Act and, hence, the proceeding can be taken

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

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

15 16 17 18 Date of 16.06.2014 31.03.2015 20.09.2015 31.12.2016 29.03.2018 filing of original return u/s 139(1) Returned 1,87,900/- 2,42,400/- 2,66,740/- 2,87,420/- 3,25,000/- total income (Rs.) Date of 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 notice u/s 16.03.2022 09.03.2022 10.03.2022 20.03.2022 11.03.2022 assessment order Assessed

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

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

15 16 17 18 Date of 16.06.2014 31.03.2015 20.09.2015 31.12.2016 29.03.2018 filing of original return u/s 139(1) Returned 1,87,900/- 2,42,400/- 2,66,740/- 2,87,420/- 3,25,000/- total income (Rs.) Date of 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 notice u/s 16.03.2022 09.03.2022 10.03.2022 20.03.2022 11.03.2022 assessment order Assessed

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

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

15 16 17 18 Date of 16.06.2014 31.03.2015 20.09.2015 31.12.2016 29.03.2018 filing of original return u/s 139(1) Returned 1,87,900/- 2,42,400/- 2,66,740/- 2,87,420/- 3,25,000/- total income (Rs.) Date of 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 notice u/s 16.03.2022 09.03.2022 10.03.2022 20.03.2022 11.03.2022 assessment order Assessed

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

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

15 16 17 18 Date of 16.06.2014 31.03.2015 20.09.2015 31.12.2016 29.03.2018 filing of original return u/s 139(1) Returned 1,87,900/- 2,42,400/- 2,66,740/- 2,87,420/- 3,25,000/- total income (Rs.) Date of 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 notice u/s 16.03.2022 09.03.2022 10.03.2022 20.03.2022 11.03.2022 assessment order Assessed

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

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

15 16 17 18 Date of 16.06.2014 31.03.2015 20.09.2015 31.12.2016 29.03.2018 filing of original return u/s 139(1) Returned 1,87,900/- 2,42,400/- 2,66,740/- 2,87,420/- 3,25,000/- total income (Rs.) Date of 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 notice u/s 16.03.2022 09.03.2022 10.03.2022 20.03.2022 11.03.2022 assessment order Assessed

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

u/s 147 of the Act. (KAVITA P. KAUSHIK) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad.” 17. A perusal of the above reasons would indicate that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee had made deposits in cash aggregating to Rs.1.63 crores. This cash deposit, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

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

u/s 147 of the Act. (KAVITA P. KAUSHIK) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad.” 17. A perusal of the above reasons would indicate that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee had made deposits in cash aggregating to Rs.1.63 crores. This cash deposit, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

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

2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as valid when such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material

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

2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as valid when such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material

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

2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as valid when such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and without any new tangible material

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

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

15. 04.10.2017 Yet another notice given with soft copy Para 7.3 Pg 45 of AO Nothing was of complied data of all documents and furnished by (A) was requested to furnish details on or till 09.10.2017 before 09.10.2017 16. 27.10.2017 Final Show Cause Notice and was Para 7.4 Pg 46 of AO asked to reply on or before

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

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

15. 04.10.2017 Yet another notice given with soft copy Para 7.3 Pg 45 of AO Nothing was of complied data of all documents and furnished by (A) was requested to furnish details on or till 09.10.2017 before 09.10.2017 16. 27.10.2017 Final Show Cause Notice and was Para 7.4 Pg 46 of AO asked to reply on or before

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

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

15. 04.10.2017 Yet another notice given with soft copy Para 7.3 Pg 45 of AO Nothing was of complied data of all documents and furnished by (A) was requested to furnish details on or till 09.10.2017 before 09.10.2017 16. 27.10.2017 Final Show Cause Notice and was Para 7.4 Pg 46 of AO asked to reply on or before

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

15. 04.10.2017 Yet another notice given with soft copy Para 7.3 Pg 45 of AO Nothing was of complied data of all documents and furnished by (A) was requested to furnish details on or till 09.10.2017 before 09.10.2017 16. 27.10.2017 Final Show Cause Notice and was Para 7.4 Pg 46 of AO asked to reply on or before