NAMITA AGRAWAL,UTTRAKHAND vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, INCOME TAX OFFICE ,DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2019-20] Namita Agrawal, Vs Dcit, 36/1, E C Road, Dehradun, Central Circle, Uttarakhand-248001 Dehradun Pan-Afspa0668P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. & Shri Naman Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 Order

1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the g Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself

BR ASSOCIATES ,UTTARAKAHAND vs. ACIT , RISHIKESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. B R Associates Vs Acit Jolly Grant, Circle-1(4)(1) Bhaniyawala, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-248140 Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaqfb6241E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kanwal K.Juneja, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10296/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income At Inr 46,02,250/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Notice Was Issued By Ito, Ward-1(2), Dehradun Thereafter, The Case Was Transferred To Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued & Replies Were Filed By The Assessee. After Considering The Submissions, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 1,93,96,755/- By Making Addition Of Inr 55.00 Lakhs Towards Bogus Advances & Inr 14,13,600/- As Deemed Income & Further Disallowance Of Expenses Of Inr 78,80,905/- Was Made.

Section 148 of the Act. 3. The ITAT has in para 13 of the impugned order specifically adverted to the above aspect and correctly held that “The ACIT, Circle 34(1), New Delhi has admittedly not recorded that he had reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax of the Assessee has escaped assessment. He continued reassessment

SOCIETY FOR ADVANCEMENT IN EDUCATION,MUSSOORIE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WORD DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the g Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself

SOCIETY FOR ADVANCEMENT IN EDUCATION,MUSSOORIE vs. ITO EXEMPTION DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the g Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself

SOCIETY FOR ADVANCEMENT IN EDUCATION,MUSSOORIE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WORD DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the g Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself

SH. ASHOK KUMAR,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalashok Kumar, Assessment Unit, 19, Sitapur Mazara, Jwalapur, Income Tax Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249407 Vs. Department. Pan-Btupk9604E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Goel, Adv. Department By Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10271519 Dated 10.04.2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Agriculturist Having No Any Other Source Of Income Than Agricultural Income. Since, The Income From Agricultural Operations Is Exempt From Tax, He Was Not Obliged To File The Return Of Income. The Assessing Officer Based On The Information That Assessee Has Deposited A Sum Of Rs.76,00,000/- In Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Initiated Reassessment Proceedings In The Case Of Assessee By Recording Reasons That Income To The Extent Of Rs.76,00,000/- Has Escaped Assessment In The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act. Accordingly, Notices U/S 148 Was Issued On 26.03.2022. In Response To Which Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 12.04.2022 Ashok Kumar Vs. Ito Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- From Agriculture Activity & Claimed The Same As Exempt From Tax. The Assessing Officer Passed The Reassessment Order Wherein He Has Made The Additions On Account Of Agriculture Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Income From Other Sources & Further Made Additions Of Rs.76,00,000/- Being Cash Deposited During Demonetization As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act. The Ao Further Made Additions Of Rs.2,67,195/- As Against Nil Income Declared Towards Bank Interest.

148 mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer and sub-section (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee before the Assessing Officer proceeds to assess, reassess

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings and the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) were deemed non-est and quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(b)", "148

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "271(1)(b)", "148", "147", "144", "144B", "69A", "250", "142(1)", "234A", "234B", "282" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings

ACHARYA BALKRISHNA,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). Thereafter, the Revenue issued notices under Section 148 of the new regime between July and August 2022. Invalidation of the Section 148 notices issued under the new regime on the ground that they were issued beyond the time limit specified under the Income

AJAY GARG,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections": [ "147", "143(3)", "144B", "139(1)", "132(4)", "250", "148", "148A", "151", "133(6)", "269SS", "269T", "135A" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

section 148(1), it is mandatory that notice u/s 148 should be served on the assessee. As observed above, in the instant case, the AO despite of having information of the correct address and correct email id had served the notice u/s 148 as well as subsequent notices on the incorrect address and further the email ID which notice

M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

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

1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself." 8. In view

M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

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

1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself." 8. In view

M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS,MEERUT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

1,42,07,835/-. A valuation report from an approved valuer was also filed before the ld AO, which in fact is also acknowledged by the ld AO at page 3 of his assessment order. Further, the ld AO also observed in page 3, the Assessee has received export incentives in the form of Duty Draw Bank claim amounting

M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS,MEERUT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

1,42,07,835/-. A valuation report from an approved valuer was also filed before the ld AO, which in fact is also acknowledged by the ld AO at page 3 of his assessment order. Further, the ld AO also observed in page 3, the Assessee has received export incentives in the form of Duty Draw Bank claim amounting

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

1,42,07,835/-. A valuation report from an approved valuer was also filed before the ld AO, which in fact is also acknowledged by the ld AO at page 3 of his assessment order. Further, the ld AO also observed in page 3, the Assessee has received export incentives in the form of Duty Draw Bank claim amounting

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

1,42,07,835/-. A valuation report from an approved valuer was also filed before the ld AO, which in fact is also acknowledged by the ld AO at page 3 of his assessment order. Further, the ld AO also observed in page 3, the Assessee has received export incentives in the form of Duty Draw Bank claim amounting

SHRI VIBHU GROVER,KOTDWARA vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvibhu Grover, Pcit, M/S Grover Sales Corporation, Dehradun. Garage Road, Kotdwara, Vs. Pauri-246169 Pan:Agdpg5842R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Shri S.K. Chaterjee, Cit-Dr

reassessment order under Section 148 read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act was passed. Addition was not made for the first reason. In the given facts, the assertion by the Revenue that inquiry and verification in re the bank account was not made is ex-facie incorrect. This being the position, this is not a case of failure