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

u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act: 7. It is well settled in law that reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons so recorded, nor anything can be deleted from the reasons so recorded. Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Hindustan Lever

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

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

reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated u/s 147 for the purpose of enquiry or verification. The counsel placed reliance on the following judgments as per Case Law index reproduced here under: 6 I.T.A. No. 90/Asr/2017 Blue City Township & Colonizers v. ITO 7 I.T.A. No. 90/Asr/2017 Blue City Township & Colonizers v. ITO 8. Per contra, the defendant ld. DR has raised strong

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. The assessee furnished the written submission which had been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.1 of the impugned order and read as under: In the above stated Grounds of Appeal the assessee has challenged the validity of proceedings u/s 147/148 & the submissions of the assessee are as under;- (i) The notice u/s

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. The assessee furnished the written submission which had been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.1 of the impugned order and read as under: In the above stated Grounds of Appeal the assessee has challenged the validity of proceedings u/s 147/148 & the submissions of the assessee are as under;- (i) The notice u/s

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 147 / 148 of the Act , subject to fulfilment of statutory conditions mentioned under the said sections are always saved. 15. This ground of appeal no – 4 is decided against the assessee. 16. Now, coming back to the remaining grounds of appeal: 17. First ground of appeal: The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in the instant case

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

Section 147(a) of the Act. (Jawand Sons vs CIT 18 November, 2009(P&H) (4) It is also held that satisfaction arrived at by any relevant material after following due procedure, it cannot be assailed.it may involve change of opinion but not at par with mere change of opinion. (Tilak Raj Bedi vs JCIT

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 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 30.03.2014 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09. 2. The appeal challenges the impugned order on the twin aspects on which the ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment, i.e., (i) that the reopening is invalid as a notice u/s. 148(1), issued

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

147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in law" (ii) Usha International Ltd, vs Assessee on 9 March, 2015 (ITAT Delhi) -As this tangible material, in the shape of audit objection, came into existence after the completion of the original assessment and led to the initiation of reassessment, we hold this report

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

reassessment proceedings provided he has reasons to believe but the same cannot be taken recourse to on the basis of reasons to suspect-ITO & Ors, vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220 (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) relied on". Therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 on the basis of the "reason" recorded is vitiated. Thus, the reasons

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

reassessment proceedings provided he has reasons to believe but the same cannot be taken recourse to on the basis of reasons to suspect-ITO & Ors, vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220 (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) relied on". Therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 on the basis of the "reason" recorded is vitiated. Thus, the reasons

MEASAGE BHAI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

189 to 194 of judgment set. V. Judgment of Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Smt. Charanjit Kaurreported in 88 ITR (Trib.) 414 copy placed at pages 195 to 199 of judgment set. 15. Thus, wrong reason to believe have been formed to initiate the proceedings u/s 148 as, there is no nexus with the formation

SMT. NIRMAL KAUR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), AMRITSAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 700/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

189 (Del) and CIT v. C. Palaniappan [2011] 55 DTR 81 (Mad), that the reassessment proceedings could not be struck down on the basis of the claim of non-receipt of notice u/s. 148 where the assessee had complied with the notice u/s. 148(1). The raising of the objection of the service by the assessee, which he does

MR. GHULAM NABI BEIGH,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 538/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 147. There is, in any case, no reference to the interest income in the reasons recorded for me to consider the impact thereof. 5.3 In my view, therefore, it is a case of reason to suspect. There is no material on record with the AO to form a reason to believe escapement of ‘income’ from assessment, which must inform