BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

reassessment or computation of income u/s 147. As per section 148, it is mandatory that the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice required him to furnish a return. The expression “Assessing Officer” used in the section 148 means ‘the Assessing Officer vested with the jurisdiction over the assessee as stipulated in the definition u/s 2

POOJA GOEL,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19

220 (Delhi): "12. The narration of facts as noted above by the court makes it clear that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee after December 16, 2010, the date on which the assessee informed the Assessing Officer that the return originally filed should be treated as the return filed pursuant

GOVIND RAM MAKRANIA PROP. M/S LAXMI OIL & GINNING FACTORY,BHIWANI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

220\n(Delhi) has held that even when the return of income was filed by the assessee\nat fag end of the proceedings, the AO should issue notice u/s 143(2) and any\ndelay in issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act would be fatal to the re-\nassessment proceedings.\n\n8. In view of the above facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , DELHI vs. LOGIC CONTROL PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

220 (Delhi): “12. The narration of facts as noted above by the court makes it clear that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee after December 16, 2010, the date on which the assessee informed the Assessing Officer that the return originally filed should be treated as the return filed pursuant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. MAHALAKSHMI LIGHT HOUSE, HAPUR

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Mahalakshmi Light House, Income Tax 285, Avas Vikas Vihar, Room No. 201, First Floor, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh Cgo Complex, Hapur Chungi, Pan: Aatfm3627N Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent

220 (Delhi): "12. The narration of facts as noted above by the court makes it clear that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee after December 16, 2010, the date on which the assessee informed the Assessing Officer that the return originally filed should be treated as the return filed pursuant

DIYA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Diya Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 1373, Rani Bagh, Shakur Ward-7(3), Basti, Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccd3991L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023

reassessment proceedings should be quashed as such. On merits The assessee has received an amount of RS.10,00,000/- from MIs. S.R. Cables Pvt. Ltd. on account of share application money. To prove the source of the funds the assessee has filed the following documents before the lower authority:- (1) Bank account of the assessee Pg.28 (2) Share application filed

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

220 (Del.)  CIT v. Victor Electodes Ltd.: 329 ITR 271 (Del.)  CIT v. Nipuan Auto (P.) Ltd. 361 ITR 155 (Delhi)  CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd.: 205 ITR 98 (Del)(FB)  Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. &Ors: 299 ITR 268 (Del.) affirmed in Lovely Export (P) Ltd.: 319 ITR (St.) 5  CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment Ltd: 194 Taxman

NEERAJ KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, BAROT, BAROT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3067/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Neeraj Kumar Ito Vs. House No. 5, Rana Farm Barot. House, Manshi Vihar, Sector-23, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Dmtpk8828J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

220 (Delhi) has categorically held that the failure of the AO, in reassessment proceedings, to issue notice under Section 143(2

MAJOR SURESH YADAV(RETD.),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-24(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2003-04] Major Suresh Yadav (Retd.), Vs Ito, Farm No.36, Dera Mandi Road, Ward-24(3), Mandi Gaon, Near Chattarpur, New Delhi. New Delhi-110030. Pan-Aaupy5153C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Mukesh Kohli, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

220 (Delhi) has elaborately discussed this issue wherein the Hon’ble High Court has unequivocal terms held that “the failure of Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings to issue notice u/s 143(2) prior to finalizing the reassessment order cannot be condoned by referring to section

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

reassess the Income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under subsection (2) of section 148." 5.1.2 Hence, considering the above legal provisions before initiating action

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

reassess the Income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under subsection (2) of section 148." 5.1.2 Hence, considering the above legal provisions before initiating action

LAKHMI CHAND YADAV,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

reassess the income in respe3ct of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice under Section 148(2). The decisions of the Kerala High Court in Travancore Cements Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 170 and of the Punjab and Haryana High 8 Lakhmi

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. GURMEET KOCHAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs. Harpreet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aaipk4656N New Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Gurmeet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aaipk4654Q New Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Gurpreet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aizpk6763F New Delhi Appellant Respondent C.O No. 46/Del/2023 In Ita No. 938/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) Harpreetkochar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-30, Room No. 5, Kg Marg, 320, E-2 Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaipk4656N Appellant Respondent C.O No. 49/Del/2023 In Ita No. 939/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) Gurmeet Kochar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-30, Room No. 5, Kg Marg, 320, E-2 Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaipk4654Q Appellant Respondent C.O Nos. 46, 47 & 49/Del/2020 Dcit Vs. Harpreetkochar

220 ITR 398 (Ker) CIT vs. Cochin Refineries Ltd. iv) 176 CTR 406 (Gau) Assam Company (I) Ltd vs. CIT v) 102 ITD 189 (Del) ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur vi) 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT V. Varas International P.Ltd. vii) 436 ITR 616 (Bombay) Peter VazvsCIT In view of the above discussion and by following the settled principals

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. HARPREET KOCHAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs. Harpreet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aaipk4656N New Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Gurmeet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aaipk4654Q New Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Gurpreet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aizpk6763F New Delhi Appellant Respondent C.O No. 46/Del/2023 In Ita No. 938/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) Harpreetkochar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-30, Room No. 5, Kg Marg, 320, E-2 Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaipk4656N Appellant Respondent C.O No. 49/Del/2023 In Ita No. 939/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) Gurmeet Kochar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-30, Room No. 5, Kg Marg, 320, E-2 Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaipk4654Q Appellant Respondent C.O Nos. 46, 47 & 49/Del/2020 Dcit Vs. Harpreetkochar

220 ITR 398 (Ker) CIT vs. Cochin Refineries Ltd. iv) 176 CTR 406 (Gau) Assam Company (I) Ltd vs. CIT v) 102 ITD 189 (Del) ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur vi) 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT V. Varas International P.Ltd. vii) 436 ITR 616 (Bombay) Peter VazvsCIT In view of the above discussion and by following the settled principals

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. GURPREET KOCHAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs. Harpreet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aaipk4656N New Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Gurmeet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aaipk4654Q New Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Gurpreet Kochar Central Circle-30, Room 5, Kg Marg, No. 320, E-2 Ara Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aizpk6763F New Delhi Appellant Respondent C.O No. 46/Del/2023 In Ita No. 938/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) Harpreetkochar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-30, Room No. 5, Kg Marg, 320, E-2 Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaipk4656N Appellant Respondent C.O No. 49/Del/2023 In Ita No. 939/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) Gurmeet Kochar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-30, Room No. 5, Kg Marg, 320, E-2 Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaipk4654Q Appellant Respondent C.O Nos. 46, 47 & 49/Del/2020 Dcit Vs. Harpreetkochar

220 ITR 398 (Ker) CIT vs. Cochin Refineries Ltd. iv) 176 CTR 406 (Gau) Assam Company (I) Ltd vs. CIT v) 102 ITD 189 (Del) ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur vi) 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT V. Varas International P.Ltd. vii) 436 ITR 616 (Bombay) Peter VazvsCIT In view of the above discussion and by following the settled principals

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, DELHI vs. APPLE COMMODITIES LTD. , GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

reassess income in respect of any\nissue which comes to his notice subsequently in the\ncourse of proceedings under this section,\nnotwithstanding that the reason for such issue has\nnot been included in the reasons recorded under\nsubsection (2) of section 148.\n\nThis amendment will take effect retrospectively\nfrom April 1, 1989, and will accordingly apply in\nrelation

SUBHASH GUJAR,JHAJJAR vs. ITO, WARD-4, ROHTAK

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

reassessment. ” Since the assessee has participated in assessment proceedings the notice u/s 143[2] was deemed to have been issued in view of Section 292BB [supra]. Hence, the appellant assessee does not deserve any relief on this count. Case Laws supporting the stand of the revenue: In furtherance of the argument it is humbly requested that the following case laws

DR. ARVIND TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmadr. Arvind Taneja, Vs. Acit, 75, Golf Links, Delhi Circle-61(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aacpt0269N

Section 143(2). (Babul Prasad Verma) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 61(1), New Delhi” 6. The ld DR vehemently argued that since the assessee had not filed any return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and had complied with the same beyond the time granted by the ld AO, the letter dated 23.10.2018 should