SHRIMATI. HARBHAJAN KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (20, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

129 Pg. 59 to 71 case laws. g) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Cebon India Ltd. High Court Of Punjab & Haryana (2010) 229 CTR (P&H) 188 : (2009) 184 Taxman 290 : (2010) 34 DTR 119 Pg. 72 to 74 case laws. 2. That affidavit to the effect that neither notice u/s 148 of the Act nor u/s

HARVINDER SINGH BULLAR,VPO RANJITGARH, MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

reassessment proceedings were initiated u/s 148 on 26/03/2022 , as per new scheme ( after obtaining necessary approval of specified authorities), and in absence of any response or compliances by the assessee, in respect of subsequent notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act 61 and also in absence of any compliance to the final SCN issued by the AO dated 01/03/2023

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

reassessment or re-computation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 1990.1" I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 22/Asr/2017 6 A.Ys.: 1984-85 to 1991-92 Accordingly, the assessment under section 147 was time barring only on 31.03.1997/31.03.1998 as notice u/s 148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

reassessment or re-computation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 1990.1" I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 22/Asr/2017 6 A.Ys.: 1984-85 to 1991-92 Accordingly, the assessment under section 147 was time barring only on 31.03.1997/31.03.1998 as notice u/s 148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

reassessment or re-computation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 1990.1" I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 22/Asr/2017 6 A.Ys.: 1984-85 to 1991-92 Accordingly, the assessment under section 147 was time barring only on 31.03.1997/31.03.1998 as notice u/s 148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

reassessment or re-computation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 1990.1" I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 22/Asr/2017 6 A.Ys.: 1984-85 to 1991-92 Accordingly, the assessment under section 147 was time barring only on 31.03.1997/31.03.1998 as notice u/s 148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

reassessment or re-computation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 1990.1" I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 22/Asr/2017 6 A.Ys.: 1984-85 to 1991-92 Accordingly, the assessment under section 147 was time barring only on 31.03.1997/31.03.1998 as notice u/s 148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

reassessment or re-computation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 1990.1" I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 22/Asr/2017 6 A.Ys.: 1984-85 to 1991-92 Accordingly, the assessment under section 147 was time barring only on 31.03.1997/31.03.1998 as notice u/s 148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

reassessment or re-computation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 1990.1" I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 22/Asr/2017 6 A.Ys.: 1984-85 to 1991-92 Accordingly, the assessment under section 147 was time barring only on 31.03.1997/31.03.1998 as notice u/s 148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that

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

reassessment can take place without service of notice being affected on the assessee or his authorized representative. (iv). Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Ceban India Ltd. IT A No. 85 of 2009, Jul 7, 2009 has held that in absence of notice being served, the AO had no jurisdiction to make assessment. Ground

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

129 & 146-IT/17-18, date of order 22.02.2019, the order passed u/s 250 (6)of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2010-11. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bathinda, (in brevity the AO), order passed u/s 143/147 of the Act date of order

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

reassessment under s. 147. We also do not find anything in the context of s. 273 which would require the words 'regular assessment' to be given a meaning different from the one given by the legislature when these words were defined." 25. I respectfully agree with the views expressed by Chandurkar J. Moreover, there is another aspect to this case

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

reassessment under s. 147. We also do not find anything in the context of s. 273 which would require the words 'regular assessment' to be given a meaning different from the one given by the legislature when these words were defined." 25. I respectfully agree with the views expressed by Chandurkar J. Moreover, there is another aspect to this case

SHRI GURBINDER SINGH MAHAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV ( 2), AMRITSAR

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

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

u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee submitted all the relevant documents with application under Rule 46A of Income tax Rule,1962 for filing the additional evidence before the appellate authority. The detail of submission before the appellate authority is extracted as below: “6. That the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble CIT(A) on 10.03.2017 against