SH. VISHWA MITTER SEKHRI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), AMRITSAR.

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

142(1) had informed the assessee that the said reply is not relevant to the assessment year 2007-08 under consideration. The AO had rightly informed the assessee with regard to issue of notice u/ s 143(2) of the Act that it was a settled law that notice u/s 143(2) is issued only after receiving the return filed

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

147 are hereby rejected as not sustainable and you are requested to cooperate in the early finalization of the assessment proceedings. Further it is also hereby intimated that the enquiry letters u/s 133(6) issued by this office to all the 3 parties viz. M/s Lovy Steel and Allied Industries, M/s ShreenathIspat Udyog, M/s Shiv BholeKirpa Traders have been received

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

3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part

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

142, sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s. 143, s. 144 and s. 145 shall, ‘so far as may be’, apply. This, therefore, made the provision of s. 143(2) applicable to an assessment u/s. 158BC. The Apex Court noted that the assessee may not file the return, or may not, after doing so, comply with the notice u/s

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

3. In Ground No. 1 and 2, the assessee has challenged the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 cannot be done for the purpose of enquiry or verification is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4. The appellant assessee company’s case was reopened by issuing notice u/s

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

reassessment proceedings in this case were only based on presumption/ suspicion and were thus not validly initiated. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred by upholding the action of the AO that the reasons recorded by the AO without application of mind to the information available on record

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

reassessment or recomputation under s. 147 of the Act. We do not find any ground to interfere in the said finding of fact, and in our view no substantial question of law is arising from the order of the Tribunal. Dismissed.” 9. It is evident from the record that the claim of the Assessee regarding non service of the notice

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

Section 147 (a) of the Act the Act. (f) If satisfaction is arrived at on the basis of any relevant material, such satisfaction cannot be assailed. Tilak Raj Bedi vs JCIT (2009) 319 ITR 385-P&11- The power of reassessment can be validly exercised if satisfaction is arrived at after following due procedure that income had escaped assessment. Such

SHRIMATI. LATA NARANG,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Asstt.Year:2011-12 were initiated in your case as you did not file any information with respect to the source of cash deposited by you at Rs.35,50,000/- in your savings bank during the relevant period. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, you filed the income

SAINIK CO OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal issue as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 698/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 on 23.05.2023 is bad in law since, the jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 on 25.07.2022 is bad in law. 5. That the CIT(A) has erred in not taking cognizance of the details of receipts and expenditure furnished in the return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s 148 whereby it was made clear that receipts

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

section 148 notice, to the effect that the original return be regarded as in response to the notice u/s. 148, is of little consequence. The same cannot in law be regarded as a return furnished in response to the notice u/s. 148 dated 30/3/2013, duly served; there being no challenge to its’ service; in fact, at any stage

SHRI SHISH PAL SINGH,JALANHDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4) JALANDHAR

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

142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” The counsel of the assessee pointed out the issue that the ld. ITO completed the assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act without considering section 153C of the Act. In this respect, the assessee placed the judgment of ITO v. Arun Kumar Kapoor 140 TTJ 0249 [2011], G. Koteswara

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

142(1) raising various questioner, has been responded to by the assessee through his lawyers and written submissions filed. 6. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/ 147 with an addition of Rs.51.57 lakhs by treating the amount transferred by the assessee to the M/s Devinder Kumar Deepesh Kumar ,as an accommodation entry for recording of bogus purchase, because

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

142(1) too remained uncomplied with. Observing, that the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities had failed to comply with the notices that were issued to him, the A.O therein proceeded with the assessment on an ex-parte basis u/s 144 of the Act, i.e, on the basis of the material/information available on record. 3. Observing, that the assessee

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

142(1) too remained uncomplied with. Observing, that the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities had failed to comply with the notices that were issued to him, the A.O therein proceeded with the assessment on an ex-parte basis u/s 144 of the Act, i.e, on the basis of the material/information available on record. 3. Observing, that the assessee

SH. KARAMJIT SINGH RAI,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the a.y. concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 06.07.2018. Thereafter, Sh. Shinder Pal Singh (husband of the assessee) attended the proceedings in the case of the assessee and filed various documents as evident from the copy of the order sheet placed in the paper book at page

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.:

reassessment. 6. It is also noted that the notice u/s 148 and notices u/s 142(1) dated 04.10.2021 and 29.11.2021 were not served on the registered email ID i.e. Izeeshankhurshidll@gmail.com' of the appellant. In our view, the service of notice is an essential condition to complete the act of issuance which has been complied with on 13.04.2021 i.e. after