SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

section 55(2)(b) and 55A of Income Tax Act, respectively before calculating the Capital Gain and order of A.O require to be set-a-side. 10. That the Id.CIT(A) has erred in law, as well as ,on facts by holding the land in question as individual land by ignoring land revenue record and further ignored that neither such

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

u/s 151 of the Act, by observing as under: “5.0 Non service of 148 notice: it has been contended that no notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served upon the appellant, however in the remand report the Assessing Officer clearly mentioned that the notice was issued but it remained non-complied. There is difference between

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

u/s 151 of the Act, by observing as under: “5.0 Non service of 148 notice: it has been contended that no notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served upon the appellant, however in the remand report the Assessing Officer clearly mentioned that the notice was issued but it remained non-complied. There is difference between

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

147 is bad in law as the jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 and proceedings completed u/s 148A(d) were made by the jurisdictional AO which is in violation with the provisions of section 151A read with notification no S.O. 1466 (E) No 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. 6. That the information uploaded on the insight portal is nowhere corroborated with any independent

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

147 is bad in law as the jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 and proceedings completed u/s 148A(d) were made by the jurisdictional AO which is in violation with the provisions of section 151A read with notification no S.O. 1466 (E) No 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. 6. That the information uploaded on the insight portal is nowhere corroborated with any independent

SHRI HARJINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, it is not in dispute that the A.O. is required to get the approval of the competent authority i.e; JCIT in the present case. Copy of the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act and for obtaining the approval of the JCIT

SOM RAJ,PATHANKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATHANKOT

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

147 of the Act only after due application of mind, and if for some reason an error creeps into the exercise of the said power by the A.O, then, the superior officer, i.e, the authority specified in Sec. 151 of the Act is able to correct the same. It is for the aforesaid reason, that Section 151 requires an officer

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

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

reassessment proceedings that the capital was introduced by way of transfer of ancestral land but the status has been mentioned as individual. In view of the above stated facts, the proceedings initiated u/s 147 are void-ab- initio and the notice u/s 147 may kindly be vacated. It is also prayed that the assessment proceedings may kindly be kept pending

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

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

reassessment proceedings that the capital was introduced by way of transfer of ancestral land but the status has been mentioned as individual. In view of the above stated facts, the proceedings initiated u/s 147 are void-ab- initio and the notice u/s 147 may kindly be vacated. It is also prayed that the assessment proceedings may kindly be kept pending

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

reassessment proceedings is bad in law on the ground that the satisfaction recorded by JCIT is not in accordance with mandate of law and the requirements of section 151 have not been fulfilled.” Accordingly the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the additional ground filed by the assessee, being legal in nature, goes to the root of the matter

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

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.:

151(1). Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 is without jurisdiction as notice u/s 148 was issued after the expiry of three years with the approval joint commissioner/ additional commissioner of Income Tax. 3 8. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend and alter the grounds of appeal. 3. The Ld. AR explained that there was bonafide reason

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

u/s 147 on 30.03.2017 on the basis of the information received by the AO from the investigation wing in the form of statement recorded in the case of Sh Madan Lal Pahuja. 3.3 In the reasons recorded, the AO has mentioned that the purchases made from Madan lalPahuja M/S Shiv bholeKirpa Traders Rs. 1.05 Cr, Lovy Steel and Allied Industries

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

151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. At the outset, it was submitted by the assessee that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Sahil Mahajan v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Pathankot (ITA Nos. 353 & 354/Asr/2016 decided dated 28.02.2019 by Amritsar Bench) wherein on the identical facts and circumstances

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 148 on the issue of ‘mechanical application of mind’ by the Ld. PCIT and also there was no ‘Reason to Believe’ that the income of assessee has escaped assessment as per concise ‘grounds of appeal,’ the following submissions may, please, be considered: - a). In all the three cases, since the assessments were sought to be reopened beyond four years

SHRI.BOOTA SINGH S/O. SH. NACHATER SINGH, BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 148 on the issue of ‘mechanical application of mind’ by the Ld. PCIT and also there was no ‘Reason to Believe’ that the income of assessee has escaped assessment as per concise ‘grounds of appeal,’ the following submissions may, please, be considered: - a). In all the three cases, since the assessments were sought to be reopened beyond four years

SHRI BABBU SINGH S/O SHRI NACHHATER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 148 on the issue of ‘mechanical application of mind’ by the Ld. PCIT and also there was no ‘Reason to Believe’ that the income of assessee has escaped assessment as per concise ‘grounds of appeal,’ the following submissions may, please, be considered: - a). In all the three cases, since the assessments were sought to be reopened beyond four years

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