SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

assessment order was obtained only as on 29.03.2017, therefore, he had invalidly assumed jurisdiction for reopening the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act. On the basis of his aforesaid contention, it was, inter alia, submitted by the ld. A.R that as the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 22.11.2017 was based on invalid assumption of jurisdiction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5),, KATRA vs. SH. CHAIN SINGH, KATRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhryassessment Year:2010-11

reopening of the case independently and with corroborative material. Even the Assessing Officer has not made any exercise to gather any material evidence on record. The initiation of reassessment itself is based upon no evidence and/or un-corroborative material, therefore in any sense cannot survive, because initiation of the proceeding u/s 147

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings were based on belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment—Therefore, issuance of notice under s. 148 was not valid.” Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in VarshabenSanatabhia Patel vs. ITO (2016) 129 DTR 261(Guj) held that the AO, in reasons recorded for purpose of reopening assessment, placed reliance upon record of case—There

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.426/Asr/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

reopening the assessment u/s. 147 fails and, therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction to reassess 12 | P a g e Assessment

SHRI HARSH VARDHAN ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

reopening of his case u/s 147 of the Act, i.e, without effecting a valid service of Notice u/s 148; as well as that as regards the validity of the assessment that was framed by him without issuing a Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, nor with those that were advanced by him as regards the merits of the addition

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

reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The facts of the case as per record are that in the reassessment

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. M/S KHOSLA INTERNATIONAL, BATALA

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

reopening of assessment is, in our view, thus, not valid in law, and the ensuing assessment, in consequence, without jurisdiction. 4.2 The second reason stated by the ld. CIT(A) for allowing the assessee’s appeal is the non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act; the assessment framed being u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147. The Revenue

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

reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe

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

reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe

M/S HOLY FAITH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.181/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Holy Faith International Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Mbd House, Central Circle-Ii, Railway Road, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach6111J Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jalandhar. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Worthy Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-1, Jalandhar Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Contention Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Case U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act And, Thus, Framing Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S.143(3)/153C At An Income Of Rs. 4,95,13,441/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 4,63,33,441/-. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering That There Was No Reason To Believe That The Income Of The

Reassessment – Reason to believe – Reopening on directions of superior officers so called reasons recorded by the AO for reopening assessee’s assessment comprises mere information received from Dy. Director of IT(Inv.) followed by directions of the very same officer and the Addl. CIT to initiate proceedings under s. 147 – These cannot be the reasons for proceeding under s. 147/148

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR vs. SH. SUHAIL AHMED BHAT, PROP. M/S SHIFA TRADERS, RANGPARISTAN, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.136(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

147 does not allow reopening of a completed assessment merely on change on opinion. The Assessing Officer does not have the power to review the previous assessment order. The Assessing Officer has to have "reason to believe" that the income has escaped assessment. In the present case the 5 ITO vs. Sh. Suhail Ahmad Bhat, Srinagar Assessing Officer passed

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 06.06.2012 could not be served upon the assessee because as per the report of the notice server of the department the assessee had left India and his present whereabouts were not available, the A.O served the same by way of affixture

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 06.06.2012 could not be served upon the assessee because as per the report of the notice server of the department the assessee had left India and his present whereabouts were not available, the A.O served the same by way of affixture

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), JALANDHAR, , CIVIL LINES vs. SH. BARJESH SINGHAL, MODERN COLONY

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

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

u/s 143(3) of the Act and, accordingly, disclosed all the material facts before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also competed the assessment by accepting the income returned after 12 I.T.A. No. 363/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 examination of all the submission of the appellant. Thus, once the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed

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

reopening of assessment and consequent reassessment are quashed. 11. 426 ITR 228 (Bom) Gateway Leasing Pvt Ltd vs ACIT & Others REASSESSMENT-NOTICE-ONLY REASONS RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE CONSIDERED-INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING SHOWING THAT ASSESSEE HAD TRADED IN SHARES WITH BENEFICIARY OF SEARCHED BOGUS COMPANY- ASSESSEE DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT

SHRI ARUN NARULA,FROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

reopening of the assessments are of the ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana u/s 150(1) of the Act and not of the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act. He contended that such reason are no reasons under the provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, he prayed that the assessment order passed

SHRI ARUN NARULA,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFD INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

reopening of the assessments are of the ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana u/s 150(1) of the Act and not of the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act. He contended that such reason are no reasons under the provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, he prayed that the assessment order passed

SHRI ARUN NARULA ,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

reopening of the assessments are of the ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana u/s 150(1) of the Act and not of the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act. He contended that such reason are no reasons under the provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, he prayed that the assessment order passed