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

1)] Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, [***], as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous

MAJOR SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the afore-said terms

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 426/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06

139, is a jurisdictional notice. Not so for an assessment u/s. 147, in-as-much as the jurisdiction to assess gets assumed on the issue of the notice u/s. 148(1), and to pass a reassessment order on the service thereof (refer R.K. Upadhyaya (supra)). Section

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

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all 8 ITA N0.635/Asr/ 2017 (A. Y: 2010-11) ITO vs. Sh. Chain Singh, Katra material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. Explanation 1.- Production before the assessing officer of account books

SH. FARUKH JEHAN ZEB ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANT NAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

139 CTR, High Court Of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs Bhaichand H Gandhi, decision of jurisdictional ITAT Bench Amritsar in the case of Sh Sanjeev Kumar Vs ITO ITA 445-449/Asr/2015 and decision of ITAT Bench Delhi in the case of Ms Mayawati Vs DCIT (2008) 113 TTJ 0178 wherein it was held that Section

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

u/s 132(1)( c ) which has to have been discovered during search. “Assessment of Income of any other person. 153C. [(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

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

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

139(1) on 29.11.2008 may be treated as the return of income filed in compliance to the said notice. Acting upon the aforesaid request, the A.O framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 26.03.2013 at an income of Rs. 2,08,51,000/- after making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount of Addition/disallowance

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

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

139(1) on 29.11.2008 may be treated as the return of income filed in compliance to the said notice. Acting upon the aforesaid request, the A.O framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 26.03.2013 at an income of Rs. 2,08,51,000/- after making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount of Addition/disallowance

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

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

139(1) on 29.11.2008 may be treated as the return of income filed in compliance to the said notice. Acting upon the aforesaid request, the A.O framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 26.03.2013 at an income of Rs. 2,08,51,000/- after making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount of Addition/disallowance

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

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

139(1) on 29.11.2008 may be treated as the return of income filed in compliance to the said notice. Acting upon the aforesaid request, the A.O framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 26.03.2013 at an income of Rs. 2,08,51,000/- after making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount of Addition/disallowance

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

139(1) per Return dtd. 30-09-13 (3) u/s 148 (1) (2) (4) (3-4) Receipts 16192750 16141750 51000 1 Bharti Singh v. Asstt.CIT 7. That the Ld. AO accepted the return u/s 148 as it is, as filed, for A.Y 2014- 15 and 2016-17 i.e; without making any addition, though the case was reopened on the same

SMT. BHARTI SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

139(1) per Return dtd. 30-09-13 (3) u/s 148 (1) (2) (4) (3-4) Receipts 16192750 16141750 51000 1 Bharti Singh v. Asstt.CIT 7. That the Ld. AO accepted the return u/s 148 as it is, as filed, for A.Y 2014- 15 and 2016-17 i.e; without making any addition, though the case was reopened on the same

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

139(1) per Return dtd. 30-09-13 (3) u/s 148 (1) (2) (4) (3-4) Receipts 16192750 16141750 51000 1 Bharti Singh v. Asstt.CIT 7. That the Ld. AO accepted the return u/s 148 as it is, as filed, for A.Y 2014- 15 and 2016-17 i.e; without making any addition, though the case was reopened on the same

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

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

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

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case