MADHURENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

reassessment. However, in view of the fact that section 153A contains non-obstante clause qua section 147, the consequential requirement of issuing notice u/s 143(2) before making assessment u/s 147, also gets obliterated in an assessment u/s 153A. Moreover, section 153A directly empowers the AO to take up the assessment without acquiring any separate jurisdiction

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment years under

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, ,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment years under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD vs. JYOTI MEDISERVICES LTD., ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment years under

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment years under

AROTI GHOSH,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment proceeding under section 147 is altogether fallacious and not into existence at all. 5. BECAUSE no notice under section 143(2) has been served upon appellant within stipulated time, therefore the whole of the assessment proceeding is vitiated for want of valid jurisdiction. 6. BECAUSE the NFAC has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs.39

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69 of 79 process and merely because some part of current receipts could not be fully utilized, the nature and character of receipts would not change. It was submitted that this was appreciated by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in the case of both the assessees for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein the excess of receipts over

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69 of 79 process and merely because some part of current receipts could not be fully utilized, the nature and character of receipts would not change. It was submitted that this was appreciated by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in the case of both the assessees for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein the excess of receipts over

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69 of 79 process and merely because some part of current receipts could not be fully utilized, the nature and character of receipts would not change. It was submitted that this was appreciated by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in the case of both the assessees for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein the excess of receipts over

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69 of 79 process and merely because some part of current receipts could not be fully utilized, the nature and character of receipts would not change. It was submitted that this was appreciated by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in the case of both the assessees for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein the excess of receipts over

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69 of 79 process and merely because some part of current receipts could not be fully utilized, the nature and character of receipts would not change. It was submitted that this was appreciated by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in the case of both the assessees for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein the excess of receipts over

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69 of 79 process and merely because some part of current receipts could not be fully utilized, the nature and character of receipts would not change. It was submitted that this was appreciated by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in the case of both the assessees for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein the excess of receipts over

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69 of 79 process and merely because some part of current receipts could not be fully utilized, the nature and character of receipts would not change. It was submitted that this was appreciated by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in the case of both the assessees for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein the excess of receipts over

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69 of 79 process and merely because some part of current receipts could not be fully utilized, the nature and character of receipts would not change. It was submitted that this was appreciated by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in the case of both the assessees for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein the excess of receipts over

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69 of 79 process and merely because some part of current receipts could not be fully utilized, the nature and character of receipts would not change. It was submitted that this was appreciated by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in the case of both the assessees for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein the excess of receipts over

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69 of 79 process and merely because some part of current receipts could not be fully utilized, the nature and character of receipts would not change. It was submitted that this was appreciated by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in the case of both the assessees for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein the excess of receipts over

KESARWANI & CO.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

reassessment would be confined to the evidence found in the course of the search. Relying upon the case of Shiv Nath Rai Harnarayan (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 117 TTJ 480 (ITAT Delhi Bench), the ld. CIT(A) held that after May, 31, 2003, the earlier provisions of block assessment in the case of search initiated against the assessee would

KESARWANI & C0,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

reassessment would be confined to the evidence found in the course of the search. Relying upon the case of Shiv Nath Rai Harnarayan (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 117 TTJ 480 (ITAT Delhi Bench), the ld. CIT(A) held that after May, 31, 2003, the earlier provisions of block assessment in the case of search initiated against the assessee would

KESARWANI & C0.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT., ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

reassessment would be confined to the evidence found in the course of the search. Relying upon the case of Shiv Nath Rai Harnarayan (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 117 TTJ 480 (ITAT Delhi Bench), the ld. CIT(A) held that after May, 31, 2003, the earlier provisions of block assessment in the case of search initiated against the assessee would