JALALABAD SOLVEX PRIVATE LTD,JALALABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR-1, PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

133(6) prior to initiation of assessment proceedings filed [DIN: ElA'AST/S/133(6)/2020- 21/1030173501(1)' ii 31-03- Notice Under 2021 Notice u/s 148 dated 31-03-2021 received Return of income section 148 filed in response to the notice under section [DIN: TBA/AST/S/148/2020- 21/1032083993(1)] 148 iii 28-06- Notice under section 143(2) issued on Notice under

SHRIMATI AMARJIT KAUR W/O BUGAR SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 133(6) and 131 of Income Tax Act to come to conclusion that in the cases where no proceedings were pending before the Assessing Officer, seeking of information without following the due process is illegal. It has also been held that such information cannot be used and form the basis for recording reasons that income has escaped assessment

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

133(6) or the subsequent notice u/s. 148(1). The assessee has also not intimated the change in his address, i.e., from that as stated in his PAN, as required u/s. 139A(5)(d); he having shifted his residence to 82B, GF, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar in December, 2008 (PB pgs. 20-21), so that a notice at the address stated

SH. PRATAP SINGH SAMRA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

133(6) of the act was issued. Thus the ground of the appellant is dismissed. Further as regards jurisdiction of addition in cash deposits of Rs. 20 lacs in Bank of Baroda is concerned, the primary contention of the appellant is that the AO has exceeded in jurisdiction in adding such amount to the income of appellant as they were

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 69 will I.T.A. No. 82/Asr/2016 9 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 not be applicable to the legal heir for the assessee and also challenged the jurisdiction for reassessment u/s 147 without issuing the notice u/s 133(6

SMT. NIRMAL KAUR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), AMRITSAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 700/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

133(6), for him to have responded thereto. But, then, that would not invalidate either the information that the AO had or the fact that the said investment could not be verified from the assessee’s return of income. It may be here pertinent to state that the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India

SOM RAJ,PATHANKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATHANKOT

Bench: Shri. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

133(6) of the Act; (ii). that the reasons on the basis of which the case of ITA No. 628/Asr/2016 – A.Y 2010-11 4 Som Raj. Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pathankot the assessee was reopened does not bear any nexus with the material available on record; (iii). that the AO prior to reopening of the case of the assessee

SHRI MOHAMMAD ABBAS ASHRAF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

133(6) of the Act. The case is squarely covered by Co-ordinate Bench ITAT Amritsat Bench Decisions in ITA No. 129(Asr)/2015 Assessment year:2005-06 Ashwani Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer Date of Order/ Judgment: 23/02/2016 In this judgment, the ITAT Amritsar has upheld that the mere AIR information that deposits were made in a bank account

SHRIMATI. SAVITRI DEVI,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 55(2)(b) and 55A of Income Tax Act, respectively before calculating the Capital Gain and order of A.O require to be set-a-side.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 on basis of information related to sale of land amount to Rs.40,89,010/-. The assessment was completed

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

reassessment proceedings and further in absence of any response from the assessee to various subsequent notices issued by the department , the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 35.23 lakhs on the basis of information gathered u/s 133(6) of the Act, @ 80% of total commission Rs.44.04 lakhs as reflected in form 26AS alleged to have been earned

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

reassessment proceedings and further in absence of any response from the assessee to various subsequent notices issued by the department , the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 35.23 lakhs on the basis of information gathered u/s 133(6) of the Act, @ 80% of total commission Rs.44.04 lakhs as reflected in form 26AS alleged to have been earned

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 11. Before the tribunal the assessee has filed a short paper book containing copies of audited financials, complete stock registers depicting date wise inward and outward movement of traded goods which are in agreement with TAR , copies of purchase and 8 I.T.A. No. 9/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 sales bills / invoices

SMT..ANURADHA,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1), PATHANKOT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

133(6), with banking authorities, has recorded an incorrect figure in the reasons recorded pertaining to cash deposited in bank and investments in time deposit when no such investment existed. I.T.A. No. 437/Asr/2024 10 Assessment Year: 2012-13 14. It is well settled that reopening based on wrong reasons to believe is bad in law: (i) ITO vs Sunbarg TradeLink

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

133(6) to the parties to whom the sales were made and all of them had confirmed the transactions with the assessee; and (iii). the stock register was produced by the assessee, wherein quantitative details showing opening stock, purchases, quantity issued for production, production and closing stock were furnished with the A.O, who verified the same and did not give

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

133(6) to the parties to whom the sales were made and all of them had confirmed the transactions with the assessee; and (iii). the stock register was produced by the assessee, wherein quantitative details showing opening stock, purchases, quantity issued for production, production and closing stock were furnished with the A.O, who verified the same and did not give

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

133(6) to the parties to whom the sales were made and all of them had confirmed the transactions with the assessee; and (iii). the stock register was produced by the assessee, wherein quantitative details showing opening stock, purchases, quantity issued for production, production and closing stock were furnished with the A.O, who verified the same and did not give

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

133(6) to the parties to whom the sales were made and all of them had confirmed the transactions with the assessee; and (iii). the stock register was produced by the assessee, wherein quantitative details showing opening stock, purchases, quantity issued for production, production and closing stock were furnished with the A.O, who verified the same and did not give

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

reassessment proceedings, if the twin conditions prescribed under section 147 of the Act are satisfied. The grounds of appeal are dismissed. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and also moved an application for admission of additional evidences stating therein as under: Sub: Assessment Year