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 proceeding vide another Notice u/s 148, dated 29/03/2016, i.e, as regards the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 43.47 lac 22 (supra) already stood triggered and were pending at the relevant point of time and, had thereafter culminated into an assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated 08.11.2016; nor are able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the mechanical manner

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

143(3) of the Act. However, the AO had only erred in not passing a speaking order against the objections raised by the appellant to reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act which he was bound to do in accordance with the said decision of the hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India

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

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

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 made

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

147 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, reassessment can be initiated even if there is disclosure in the return if without considering the particulars of the return, processing is done under s. 143(1) or assessment is made under s. 143(3). No doubt, mere change of opinion by itself is not a ground for reassessment as held in the judgments relied

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

147 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, reassessment can be initiated even if there is disclosure in the return if without considering the particulars of the return, processing is done under s. 143(1) or assessment is made under s. 143(3). No doubt, mere change of opinion by itself is not a ground for reassessment as held in the judgments relied

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

147. The jurisdiction to reassess being assumed on the issue of a valid notice u/s. 148, the notice u/s. 143(2) does not, it 10 Asst. CIT v. Khosla International may be appreciated, assume the status of a jurisdictional notice. The failure to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) in such a case would not invalidate an assessment, as explained

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

147 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, reassessment can be initiated even if there is disclosure in the return if without considering the particulars of the return, processing is done under s. 143(1) or assessment is made under s. 143(3). No doubt, mere change of opinion by itself is not a ground for reassessment as held in the judgments relied

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

143 (3) of the Act, and the entire transaction of the assessee was examined by the assessing officer, therefore in view of first proviso of section 147, no reopening could be made by the assessing officer. It was submitted that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose either the purchase of goods purchased from

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

147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued.” 10. In another case of “Raymond Woolen Mills Limited. Vs ITO”, 236 ITR 34 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “In this case

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

u/s 147 & 148 of the Act were held to be invalid in the present case and there is no need to go into the merit of the case. 4.2 Let us to peruse the relevant provisions of law: "147. If the AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

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)

143(1) of the Act. According to Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the AO without application of mind after receipt of information from ITO (hq.) (tech) O/o Pr. 3 | P a g e Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Jasbir Singh. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Jalandhar, has simply reopened the assessment. According to Ld. Counsel, before the AO decides

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

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

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and also other income chargeable to tax in respect of which assessee is assessable which has escaped assessment and which comes to notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section for the assessment year under consideration.” 6. The AO has issued detailed questionnaire along with the notice issued u/s

KAISER INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,SAMBA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SRINAGAR

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

reassessment proceeding and was satisfied that no income has escaped ITA Nos. 20&21/Asr/2021 7 Kaiser Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT assessment. The Ld. PCIT, Srinagar has set aside the order passed by Ld. A.O. u/s 143(3) read with section 147

KAISER INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SAMBA vs. PRINCIPAL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SRINAGAR

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

reassessment proceeding and was satisfied that no income has escaped ITA Nos. 20&21/Asr/2021 7 Kaiser Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT assessment. The Ld. PCIT, Srinagar has set aside the order passed by Ld. A.O. u/s 143(3) read with section 147

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

143(3)1147 dated 20.12.2017. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in confirming the validity of the proceedings u/s 1471148 because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax did not record the satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the AO, as prescribed u/s 151, that the case of the assessee was fit for issue of notice u/s

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

143(3)1147 dated 20.12.2017. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in confirming the validity of the proceedings u/s 1471148 because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax did not record the satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the AO, as prescribed u/s 151, that the case of the assessee was fit for issue of notice u/s

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

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

147, dated 26.03.2013 had in the mean time again disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. On further appeal, the CIT(A) observed that he had while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2009-10 had upheld the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction that involving identical facts was raised

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

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

147, dated 26.03.2013 had in the mean time again disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. On further appeal, the CIT(A) observed that he had while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2009-10 had upheld the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction that involving identical facts was raised