SH. AMARJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

PARAMJIT SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

SH. GURDEEP SINGH MAHAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

INDER KAUR,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

KARTAR SINGH, FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

SH. BALJINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

RAKESH KUMAR,JAGADHRI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

ASHOK KUMAR THAKRAL,JAGADHRI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revised under section 263 of the Act. In other words, proceedings under section 263 cannot be initiated against an order which is itself non est, and therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 10.4 The Ld. AR had also filed the consolidated written submission in support

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

revised under section 263 of the Act. In other words, proceedings under section 263 cannot be initiated against an order which is itself non est, and therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 10.4 The Ld. AR had also filed the consolidated written submission in support