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

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

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 148 of the Income

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

JALALABAD SOLVEX PRIVATE LTD,JALALABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR-1, PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

u/s 148 dated 31-03-2021 received Return of income section 148 filed in response to the notice under section [DIN: TBA/AST/S/148/2020- 21/1032083993(1)] 148 iii 28-06- Notice under section 143(2) issued on Notice under 2021 Objections the 28/06/2021 providing the details of section 143(2) reopening reassessment of proceedings read with section assessment filed by 147

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

143(2) and subsequent requisitions u/s 142(1), and without any satisfactory explanation to the source of cash deposited in bank , the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs.85.63 lakhs (which include the amount of Rs.72.10 lakhs as addition u/s 69A). I.T.A. No. 698/Asr/2024 4 Assessment Year: 2013-14 4. The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

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

143(3) read with section 148 of the Act at Rs 61,89,154.00/-against declared income of Rs 450,000/-by making following additions: i. Addition of Rs 13,82,500/- on a/c of cash deposits in saving Bank a/c with HDFC Bank on various dates, wrongly holding that assessee has not explained source of cash deposits. I.T.A

SMT. BANI TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

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

143(3) read with section 148 of the Act at Rs 61,89,154.00/-against declared income of Rs 450,000/-by making following additions: i. Addition of Rs 13,82,500/- on a/c of cash deposits in saving Bank a/c with HDFC Bank on various dates, wrongly holding that assessee has not explained source of cash deposits. I.T.A

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

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

143(3) read with section 148 of the Act at Rs 61,89,154.00/-against declared income of Rs 450,000/-by making following additions: i. Addition of Rs 13,82,500/- on a/c of cash deposits in saving Bank a/c with HDFC Bank on various dates, wrongly holding that assessee has not explained source of cash deposits. I.T.A

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

143, wherein their Lordships held that CIT(A) has no power to direct reopening of case for another year. In this case, assessments for the asst. yrs. 1994-95 to 1997-98 were reopened under s. 147 and were completed on 11th March, 2002. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against that order. The CIT(A) allowed

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

reassessment is permissible because reasons can be even on the 18 I.T.A. No. 363/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 basis of particulars of the return without any new materials even if proceedings has been taken u/s 143(2). 19. He further submitted relying on the jurisdictional High Court in the case Jawand Sons vs CIT 18 November

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 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 1961 dated 29.12.2018. 2 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. That learned CIT(A) has arbitrarily upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings on the facts & circumstances of the case only on basis of report

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI 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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income