ACIT,ALLAHABAD vs. M/S SUNSINE INFRASTATE PVT TTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sunshine Infraestate Income-Tax, Central Circle, V. Private Limited Allahabad, U.P. 17, Industrial Area, Naini, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 22/Alld/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.103/Alld/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited The Assistant 17, Industrial Area, Naini, V. Commissioner Of Allahabad, U.P. Income-Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent)

43 taxman.com 395(Guj. HC) 8. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Surendra Chand Bansal , reported in (2014) 42 taxman.com 201(Alld . HC) The ld. CIT(A) was pleased to allow the appeal filed by assessee by holding that the search and seizure operations were conducted by Revenue u/s 132(1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

43 (iii) [2004] 267 ITR 577 (Karnataka) Rishabchand Bhansali vs. DCIT (iv) [2000] 243 ITR 425 (AP) (v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that the approval u/s

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

43 (iii) [2004] 267 ITR 577 (Karnataka) Rishabchand Bhansali vs. DCIT (iv) [2000] 243 ITR 425 (AP) (v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that the approval u/s

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

43 (iii) [2004] 267 ITR 577 (Karnataka) Rishabchand Bhansali vs. DCIT (iv) [2000] 243 ITR 425 (AP) (v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that the approval u/s

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

43 (iii) [2004] 267 ITR 577 (Karnataka) Rishabchand Bhansali vs. DCIT (iv) [2000] 243 ITR 425 (AP) (v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that the approval u/s

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

SWATANTRA MISHRA,GEORGE TOWN, ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Swatantra Mishra, Income Tax Officer, F-6 Tulsiani Enclave, Lowther Road, V. Ward-1(5), Allahabad George Town, Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Axvpm0471B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: None (Application) Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2023 O R D E R

1 A.Y. 2011-12 Swatantra Mishra 2. That in any view of the matter the learned CIT (A) erred in passing ex-parte order dated 23.05.2023 without giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant. 3. That in any view of the matter the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notice of hearing which was fixed on two dates