COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 292B, must be adjudicated by applying the provision. Secondly, in the said case, the assessment year itself was wrongly mentioned. The Supreme Court in the appeal noticed that the assessee had raised an objection before of the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings but there was no reply or clarification by the Assessing Officer. 34. In P.V. Doshi versus

VINOD KOHLI,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman\N\Nita No.896/Del/2021\N(Assessment Year: 2012-13)\N\Nsmt. Vinod Kohli,\Nc.W. – 66, Malibu Town,\Nsohna Road,\Ngurugram – 122 018 (Haryana).\N(Pan : Amipk8299D)\N(Appellant)\N\Nvs.\N\Nacit, Circle 35 (1),\Nnew Delhi.\N(Respondent)\N\Nassessee By : Ms. Monalisa Maity, Advocate\Nrevenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing : 13.03.2025\Ndate Of Order : 21.05.2025\N\Norder\N\N1. The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-\N\N\"1. That Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Based On Incorrect Assumptions, Conjectures & Surmises.\N\N2. That Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Reassessment In The Captioned Matter Is Invalid Because -\N\N2.

sections": [ "147", "148", "292B", "143(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act were

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-II vs. MICRA INDIA PVT LTD

Section 292B of the Act. The Court observed that this provision condones the invalidity which arises merely by mistake, defect or omission in a notice, if in substance and effect it is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Since no valid notice was served on the assessee to reassess

RAKESH VAID,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 292B in the opinion of the court would admit that no controversy with respect to the question of notice or proper service of summons, if at all were issued in the proper manner, known to law. Here clearly that is not the case. The narrative of facts and the behavior of the Assessing Officer in this case is disturbing

SATYAVEER SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment. Assessing Officer without raising any objection. " Consequently, in view of the above, a reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued in the name of a deceased assessee is null and void. ALSO, NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, 1961 WAS EVER ISSUED UPON THE PETITIONER DURING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST

SATYAVEER SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment. Assessing Officer without raising any objection. " Consequently, in view of the above, a reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued in the name of a deceased assessee is null and void. ALSO, NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, 1961 WAS EVER ISSUED UPON THE PETITIONER DURING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST

OPTIMIST ELECTRONICS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-19(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

reassessment order as well as first appellate order and submitted that the mention of non-existent provision of section 147(b) of the Act is a clerical mistake which is curable under section 292B

SHYAM PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-23(3), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

reassessment order as well as first appellate order and submitted that the mention of non-existent provision of section 147(b) of the Act is a clerical mistake which is curable under section 292B

SKY BLUE INFOTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 23(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.438/Del/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Sky Blue Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 206, Hans Bhawan, 1, Vs. Ward-23(4), Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, Room No.246, C.R. Bldg., New Delhi. I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No. Aalcs1584K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment order as well as first appellate order and submitted that the mention of non-existent provision of section 147(b) of the Act is a clerical mistake which is curable under section 292B

AMIT KHATRI,SONIPAT vs. ITO, WARD 1, SONIPAT

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2430/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Amit Khatri Income Tax Officer Ward No.30, Garhi Bhraman, Vs. Ward-1, Sonipat, Haryana. Sonipat, Haryana. Pan No. Bdspk3438G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment order as well as first appellate order and submitted that the mention of non-existent provision of section 147(b) of the Act is a clerical mistake which is curable under section 292B

DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. ANJANI KUMAR GOENKA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2011-12 Dcit, Cirlce-10(1), Anjani Kumar Goenka, C.R. Building, Vs. N-86, Connaught Place, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 1 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aagpg6344M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024 Order

292B are not applicable. In the cross objections the AO wants us to treat us the assessment completed u/s.148 as assessment finalised u/s. 153 A of the Act. In our opinion, both the sections deal with different situations and notice issued under one section cannot be treated notice under another section nor can be assessment made under a particular section

DEFSYS SOLUTIONS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

reassessments (uls 143(3),147, 153A, 153C rectificationl appellate orderl revisions etc. Add: Addition as per recommendation of TPO uls 11,27,15,4101- 92CA -" Add: Addition as per issue of ~ 12,175/- Disallowance Add: Addition on account of excess physical 14,28,834/- stock Add: Addition on account of less physical ~~~ 20,00,9801- stock Add: Addition on account

PANKAJ KHANNA DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13,NEW DELHI , DELHI vs. TIPSY FINANCIAL & MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Once the AO has initiated the re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of wrong premise, the subsequent assessment proceedings also become invalid in the eyes of law. It is, therefore, held that the AO has wrongly initiated the re-assessment proceedings under Section

SUMANGAL TECHPARK (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 24(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, 117, Hans Bhawan, Ward-24(3), 1 Bsz Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs4760R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First Of All, We Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Representatives On Legal Ground No.1 Of The Assessee Which Reads As Under:- “3. The Initiation Of The Proceedings U/S 148 & The Consequent Order Us 147 Are Bad In Law As A) The Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 148 Are Contrary To Provisions Of Law B) The Mandatory Procedure Laid Down In The Act Has Not Been Followed. C) The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Time Barred As Issued After 4 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year Where The Case Has Already Been Assessed U/S 143(3). D) The Approval Of Addl. Cit & Pcit Is Bad In Law & Mechanical Without Application Of Mind & Has Been Taken Without Bringing To Their Notice Material Facts Of The Case. E) The Information Has Been Collected Behind The Back Of The Assessee & The Assessee Was Never Confronted With The Same Nor An Opportunity Provided For Cross-Examination Of Jain Brothers, Alleged Intermediary & The Relevant Seized Material Relied Upon Has Not Been Provided To The Assessee.”

reassessment order as well as first appellate order and submitted that the mention of non-existent provision of section 147(C) of the Act is a clerical mistake which is curable u/s 292B

ACIT, CIRCLE- 23(1), NEW DELHI vs. SHREE BALKISHAN AGARWAL GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD., DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

reassessment has been recorded as 147(b) of the Act. During the relevant period, section 147(b) was no longer in existence. This shows that the Ld. AO has filed the Proforma in mechanically manner and Ld. CIT has also approved the same mechanically. In the case of Madhu Apartment Private Limited vs. ITO, ITA.Nos.3869 & 3870/Del./2018 wherein

DHEERAJ CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating

VANSHIKA MOTORS (P) LTD.,MEERUT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, MEERUT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KHEMKA STUART LEISURE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating