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)

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

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)

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

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)

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

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)

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

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)

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

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)

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

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)

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

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)

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

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

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

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

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

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)

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

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

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

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)

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

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)

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

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)

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

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

reassessment proceedings.  The impugned revision proceedings are thus based on a mere change of opinion and constitute an impermissible exercise of revisional power. The order passed under section 263, therefore, deserves to be quashed as being void ab initio.  It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order u/s

SURJEET 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)

revision u/s 263 of the Act has been laid on 15-15.4 ii) the bedrock of receipt of the proposal from the learned Assessing Officer (placed at page 465 – 468 of Paper Book), which vitiates the action u/s 263 of the Act. iii) That on the date of order of assessment passed u/s

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,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)

revision u/s 263 of the Act has been laid on 15-15.4 ii) the bedrock of receipt of the proposal from the learned Assessing Officer (placed at page 465 – 468 of Paper Book), which vitiates the action u/s 263 of the Act. iii) That on the date of order of assessment passed u/s