EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

u/s. 263 of the Act issued by the Pr. CIT is vague and only for making deeper enquiry and re-considering the evidences already on record duly considered during assessment proceedings based on purported proposal that fresh facts have been emerged subsequent to the order of assessment which is factually incorrect and untenable and the conditions or the factors enabling

AJAY TANTA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 r.w.s 144 of the Income tax Act and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147/144 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO without considering the fact that

ABHIMANYU GUPTA ,PATIALA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-PATIALA , PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144 read with section 144B of the Act without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions required for initiation of proceedings and upholding of assessment is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there was no tangible material on record that income of the appellant had escaped assessment which is based

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

144 (25% of 16,85,84,575)] is escaped income of the assessee. Further in case other unexplained income of the assessee comes to light during the course of assessment proceedings, then such unexplained income will be added to the total assessed income at the culmination of assessment proceedings. Considering the factual matrix, statutory provisions and legal principles, the undersigned

ANAND SAWROOP,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

reassessment order u/s 147 cannot be passed without compliance with the mandatory requirement of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. No contrary authority including that of the jurisdictional Himachal Pradesh High Court has been brought to our notice. 10. Further, we agree with the contention of the ld AR that the provisions of section 292BB doesn’t come

SADHU RAM GUPTA,DHURI, SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, MALERKOTLA, PUNJAB

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 873 & 874/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2017-18 & 2020-21 Shri Sadhu Ram Gupta, The Ito, House No. 263, W.No. 15B, Vs Ward-1, Sangrur, Tehsil Mohalla Dhuri, Malerkotla. Sangrur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Addpg0223H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 & 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. b) The ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.87,34,000/- and Rs.34,00,000/- in assessment year 2017-18 and 2020-21 respectively. 3. The facts on all vital points are common in both the years. For the facility of reference, we take the facts

SADHU RAM GUPTA,DHURI, SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, MALERKOTLA, PUNJAB

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 873 & 874/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2017-18 & 2020-21 Shri Sadhu Ram Gupta, The Ito, House No. 263, W.No. 15B, Vs Ward-1, Sangrur, Tehsil Mohalla Dhuri, Malerkotla. Sangrur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Addpg0223H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 & 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. b) The ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.87,34,000/- and Rs.34,00,000/- in assessment year 2017-18 and 2020-21 respectively. 3. The facts on all vital points are common in both the years. For the facility of reference, we take the facts

SH. SATNAM SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), MOHALI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

144 read with section 147 of the Act dated 25.11.2019. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated once one live proceeding is pending for any relevant assessment year in consequent to reopening notice u/s 148 of the Act, a second reopening notice till that valid assessment is pending cannot be issued. This is invalid and illegal. For this

SH. SATNAM SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), MOHALI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

144 read with section 147 of the Act dated 25.11.2019. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated once one live proceeding is pending for any relevant assessment year in consequent to reopening notice u/s 148 of the Act, a second reopening notice till that valid assessment is pending cannot be issued. This is invalid and illegal. For this

SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH,JAGADHRI, YAMUNANGAR vs. DCIT(E) (CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the Act. Further, he relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. In the instant case, the action of the AO in acquiring jurisdiction u/s 147 has been challenged by the assessee on two counts. Firstly, it has been contended that

SH.RANDHIR SINGH,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on 06.12.2017 and income was assessed at Rs. 42,18,780/- by making an addition of Rs. 39,00,000/-. During appellate proceedings it has been claimed that the assessment framedby the Assessing Officer is erroneous in that notice u/s 143(2) has not been issued tothe assessee

INCOME TAX OFFIER, WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA vs. BALPREET SINGH, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

u/s 69A as the assessee had failed to furnish any explanation and prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of credits of Rs.33,07,37,215/- in bank accounts during the assessment proceedings. 5) That, reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income

BANSAL RICE TRADERS,SANGRUR vs. ITO-WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

144 of the Act. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards page no. 4 of the assessee’s paper book which is the copy of the reason recorded by the A.O. for issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act and read as under: Reasons for issue notice

KUSUM MITTAL,SANGRUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - SANGRUR, SANGRUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144 of the Act without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions required for initiation of proceedings and completion of assessment and as such, the same are without jurisdiction and hence deserve to be quashed as such. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there was no tangible material on record to form a "reason

JAMYANG KHYENTSE YESHI,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ACIT, DCIT, C.R. BUILDING, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A), After Calling For A Remand Report Under Rule 46A, Recorded The Following Findings (Para 5.1 To 5.5 Of The Appellate Order):

147 to 153, in relation to both reopening u/s 148 and making reassessment, thus reassessment was bad in law and in procedure. 3. That notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued on 01.04.2021, therefore it would be governed by the re-assessment regime which came into effect on 01.04.2021, thus, assessment is not according to new procedure established

INCOME TAX OFFICE, LUDHIANA vs. SRI GURU HARGOBIND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 as the assessee had failed to furnish any explanation on this issue during the course of assessment proceedings. 5) That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the addition of Rs. 61,606/- made by the AO being undisclosed interest income and the assessee

CHHERING TOMDAN,SPITI, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAMPUR BUSHAHR, HIMACHAL PRADESH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Chhering Tomdan, Vs. The Ito, Village Khurik, बनाम Rampur Bushahr, Po Rangreek, Himachal Pradesh Rangrik B.O. Khurik (78), Lauhaul & Spiti, H.P. 171114 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bhxpt8803P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, Shri Viren Sibbal, Advocate & Shri Ashok Goyal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Jcit, Sr. Dr

reassessment proceedings are bad in law and non-est as the same have been concluded without following the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC). 4. That the impugned Order had been passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and without allowing reasonable

AMARJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 6(1) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1171 /Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amarjit Singh बनाम The ITO C/o V V Bhalla & Company Ward 6(1) SCF-39, Rishi Nagar Main Market, Ludhiana Adjoining Subway, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABTPS8558B अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr

147 r.w.s 144 without giving proper opportunity of being heard in contravention to the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. 8. That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO erred in law & facts in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, without any base & reasons thereof