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

6 are interlinked to each other pertaining to the issues of validity of reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act; sanction by PCIT under section 151 and non service of notice and thus, validity of reassessment proceeding. 6.1 In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the finding of the AO on the issue of validity

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

6 are interlinked to each other pertaining to the issues of validity of reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act; sanction by PCIT under section 151 and non service of notice and thus, validity of reassessment proceeding. 6.1 In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the finding of the AO on the issue of validity

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 of the Act. 4. The facts of the case as per record are that in the reassessment proceedings, the statutory notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 22 March 2016 which was received back with postal comments refused. Subsequently the official of the department was sent on 14 April 2016 for service of notice

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

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

6. That the assessment framed by A.O (1)3, Bathinda is bad-in-law, invalid and void-abinitio being no order is passed to primary objections raised by the appellant. 7. That assessment made by A.O 1(3), Bathinda is bad-in-law being it gave no finding on the reasons recorded u/s 147. 8. That

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section, a notice u/s 148 Is Issued for the A.Y. 2016-17. (Arvind Bansal) Dated: 29.03.2019 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirde-l, Bathinda 6. On receipt of recorded reasons the assessee raised objections to initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and submitted documentary evidences and explanations praying for dropping of reassessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section, a notice u/s 148 Is Issued for the A.Y. 2016-17. (Arvind Bansal) Dated: 29.03.2019 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirde-l, Bathinda 6. On receipt of recorded reasons the assessee raised objections to initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and submitted documentary evidences and explanations praying for dropping of reassessment

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

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

reassessment proceeding cannot be initiated under section 147 for the purpose of enquiry and verification. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of-the case, CIT did not recorded satisfaction under Section 151 for issuing notice under Section 147. 4. Without prejudice, no approval has been obtained from the component authority as required u/s 151. Hence the notice

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 of the Income Tax Act is confirmed.” 8 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO 5. The Ld. AR for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the actions of the AO of additions made u/s 68 of the Act on the basis of unexplained credits found in the books

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

section 69 will I.T.A. No. 82/Asr/2016 9 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 not be applicable to the legal heir for the assessee and also challenged the jurisdiction for reassessment u/s 147 without issuing the notice u/s 133(6

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

147 of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 150(1) of the Act. Consequently the grounds raised at S.Nos.1 to 5 for both assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 are dismissed.” 6. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. Considering the argument first, we adjudicate the limitation for service

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s Section 144B of the Act dated 29.05.2023 also deserve to be quashed. Decided in favour of the assessee. 2025 (6

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.:

6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id AO erred in making addition to the tune of Rs 30235000/- by passing the order u/s 147 r.wis 1448. That that assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 by the Ld AO is in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions as stipulated under

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

Bench: Shri. 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 ITA No. 628/Asr/2016

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

6 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 third party “ Hitesh Jain ” ( Prop of M/s Devinder Kumar Deepesh Kumar ), and in such cases where any incriminating materials were found with the searched person relating to a third party ( the assessee in this case ) then the proceedings should have been initiated u/s 153C of the Act ’61, and not u/s 147/148

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

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

6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short “D.R.”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld D.R, that as the sanctioning authority, i.e, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax was at Column 13 of the form of approval only required to 8 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda

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

reassessment, therefore, the same not having been so done by the A.O in the present case, rendered the assessment framed by him u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 18.03.2014 as invalid. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (“D.R”, for short) supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the A.O had validly

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

reassessment, therefore, the same not having been so done by the A.O in the present case, rendered the assessment framed by him u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 18.03.2014 as invalid. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (“D.R”, for short) supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the A.O had validly

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

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

reassessment. He stated that loose document did not indicate the amount of money that exchanged hands and there was no evidence with the Assessing Officer that the assessee had paid the amount for purchase of the Lexus car. 13. I find that the Assessing Officer had sufficient reasons to believe that the assessment needed to be reopened u/s