RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., Vs Ito, Shop No.9, Plot No.51, Block-C, Ward-20(3), Mahendru Enclave, Near Hans Cinema, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr5533N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th August, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 17Th August, 2011, Declaring A Loss Of Rs.20,53,019/-. The Case Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) On 10Th March, 2014, Determining The Income At Rs.20,06,714/-. Thereafter, On The Basis Of Information Received During The Course Of Search & Seizure Operation In The Case Of Entry Provider Shri Anand Kumar Jain & Shri Naresh Kumar Jain & Subsequent Investigation That The Assessee Is A Beneficiary Of Rs.39,00,055/-, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons U/S 147. Subsequently, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 26Th March, 2018 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Pcit-7, New Delhi. In Response To The Same, The Assessee Filed A Letter Stating That The Return Already Filed U/S 139 May Be Treated As The Return Filed In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. However, Another Letter Dated 7Th August, 2018 Was Issued To The Assessee Requesting Him To File The Return In Response To Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. The Assessee Ultimately Filed Its Return On 13Th August, 2018 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.4,053/-. Subsequently, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The It Act & Copies Of The Reasons Recorded Were Also Handed Over To The Assessee.

natural justice. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in facts and circumstances of the case in upholding the impugned assessed income u/s 143(3) at Rs.20,06,714/- ignoring the fact the additions originally made were deleted in the first appeal and therefore the assessed income has to be taken considering the returned loss of Rs.20

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT (THIRD MEMBER), SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, vs ITO, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. PAN-AOOPK6335A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA Respondent by Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT (THIRD MEMBER), SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, vs ITO, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. PAN-AOOPK6335A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA Respondent by Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement

SUNITA SAINI,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1877/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sunita Saini, Income Tax Officer, House No.743P, Sector-38, Vs. Ward 1(4), Gurugram, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Awmps2317Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment proceedings by the AO as is also evident from the subsequent notice dated 08.02.2021 and screenshot and e- proceedings portal placed at pages 27 & 28 of the Paper Book. It is submitted that none disposal of objections by passing a speaking order by the Ld. AO is a clear violation of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. RAJNIL SALES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

147 and 148 of the Act to the assessee including notices are hereby quashed. b. Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of M.P. Ramachandran Vs. DCIT (32 SOT 592) has held that: “Thus, protective assessment is always successive to the substantive assessment. There may be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment, but there cannot be any protective

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] 11. It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the Section (Section

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] 11. It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the Section (Section

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] 11. It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the Section (Section

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] 11. It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the Section (Section

RAGHAV SOFTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 20(4), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

natural justice. 2. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The notice sent through “Speed Post” with acknowledgment due is returned by the postal authorities. It is seen from the record that on earlier occasions also, the notices were returned by the postal authority. The assessee has not provided any new address to the Registry. Therefore, the appeal

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 proceedings ignoring the fact that initiation of the proceedings u/s 148 and the consequent order u/s 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 information has been collected behind the back

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 proceedings ignoring the fact that initiation of the proceedings u/s 148 and the consequent order u/s 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 information has been collected behind the back

HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTDR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

u/s 147 on basis of mechanical reasons simply based on borrowed satisfaction of ITO Ward 11(3) New Delhi which are approved in perfunctory manner by Ld PCIT and gravely violated principle of natural justice in reopening proceedings, and thus quash the reassessment

HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTDR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

u/s 147 on basis of mechanical reasons simply based on borrowed satisfaction of ITO Ward 11(3) New Delhi which are approved in perfunctory manner by Ld PCIT and gravely violated principle of natural justice in reopening proceedings, and thus quash the reassessment

BHAVMEET SINGH BHATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-43(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2011-12 Bhavmeet Singh Bhatia, Vs. Acit, C/O Rra Taxindia, Circle-43(1), D-28, South Extn. Part-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Amypb7621A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 Order

natural justice. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 12,04,700/- on account of cash deposit in bank account of assessee u/s 68, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case

CHILDREN WELFARE TRUST (REGD),FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 3637/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Children Welfare Trust (Regd) Vs National Faceless C/O. Gita Balniketan Senior Assessment Centre, Secondary School, 3-E, Nit, Delhi (Nafac) Faridabad Delhi Pan: Aabtc6957B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv, Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Sh. Mirza, Ca & Shri Sarthakkh Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025

justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income u/s 139 of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-17 at NIL income by claiming refund of Rs. 3,15,334/-. The case of the Assessee trust Children Welfare Trust Vs. CIT(E) was selected for ‘Complete Scrutiny’ and an assessment order came

SAHIL BAJAJ,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-4(1), GURGAON

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

147 of the Act is bad in law as no new fresh/tangible material has come to the knowledge of the Ld. A.O. 2.6 That the re-opening of the assessment is bad in law for the reason that the sanction granted u/s 151 of the Act is not valid in the eyes of the law and the same is mechanical

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

natural justice 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in passing the assessment order dated 08th December, 2019 u/s 147 r.w.s... 143(3)by relying on various statements recorded during the course of survey/search which has been recorded under threat, pressure and was was not out of free will, is not reliable