SHRI RAVINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

151 can also be subject of jurisdictional challenge to reopening notice—It is an elementary law that whenever any statutory obligation is casted upon any statutory authority such authority is required to discharge its obligation not mechanically, not even formally but after due application of mind — Thus, obligation of granting Approval acts as an inbuilt protection to taxpayer against arbitrary

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

151 can also be subject of jurisdictional challenge to reopening notice—It is an elementary law that whenever any statutory obligation is casted upon any statutory authority such authority is required to discharge its obligation not mechanically, not even formally but after due application of mind — Thus, obligation of granting Approval acts as an inbuilt protection to taxpayer against arbitrary

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

151 can also be subject of jurisdictional challenge to reopening notice—It is an elementary law that whenever any statutory obligation is casted upon any statutory authority such authority is required to discharge its obligation not mechanically, not even formally but after due application of mind — Thus, obligation of granting Approval acts as an inbuilt protection to taxpayer against arbitrary

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

151 can also be subject of jurisdictional challenge to reopening notice—It is an elementary law that whenever any statutory obligation is casted upon any statutory authority such authority is required to discharge its obligation not mechanically, not even formally but after due application of mind — Thus, obligation of granting Approval acts as an inbuilt protection to taxpayer against arbitrary

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

151 can also be subject of jurisdictional challenge to reopening notice—It is an elementary law that whenever any statutory obligation is casted upon any statutory authority such authority is required to discharge its obligation not mechanically, not even formally but after due application of mind — Thus, obligation of granting Approval acts as an inbuilt protection to taxpayer against arbitrary

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case impugned assessment order dated 27-12-2016 is bad in law on account of invalid initiation of reassessment proceedings on following grounds: - a. That Ld. AO did not have 'reason to believe' as postulated in section 147 of the Act to draw an opinion that the income of the assessee

SHRI BALJINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

1 to 6 are interlinked to each other pertaining to the issues of validity of reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act; sanction by PCIT under section 151 and non service of notice and thus, validity of reassessment

SHRIMATI MANJIT KAUR,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

1 to 6 are interlinked to each other pertaining to the issues of validity of reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act; sanction by PCIT under section 151 and non service of notice and thus, validity of reassessment

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, "belongs to; or 7 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned

SHRI HARJINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, it is not in dispute that the A.O. is required to get the approval of the competent authority i.e; JCIT in the present case. Copy of the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act and for obtaining the approval of the JCIT

SHRI KASHMIR SINGH S/O SHRI SHINGARA SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), AMRITSAR

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

reassessment proceedings against the assessee, i.e, for the same year and, he had in a most mechanical manner, on the same day, i.e, on 28.03.2016 granted his sanction/approval as contemplated in sub-section (1) of section 151

KHURSHID AHMAD DAR,JAMMU AND KASHMIR, INDIA vs. ITO WARD, UDHAMPUR, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Blekhurshid Ahmad Dar Vs. Ito, Ward, Nully Poshwari Turkawangam, Udhampur Shopia, 192305, Jammu & Kashmir, India.Pin 192305. Pan No. Awmpd5664K Assessee By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Itp. Revenue By Mrs. Roshanta Kumari Meena, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025. Date Of Pronouncement To. [1 .2025. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

151 were amended vide Finance Act of 2021, with effect from 1-4-2021 - Since there was a regime change with respect to law of limitation coming into effect from 1-4-2021, which curtailed time limit for reopening of assessment from 6 years to 3 years, revenue, with a view to avail limitation prescribed under unamended section 149, generated

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

151(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors for recording of satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

151(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors for recording of satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

151(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors for recording of satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

151(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors for recording of satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

151(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors for recording of satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

151(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors for recording of satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income