PELICAN TOBACCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,. vs. ITO, WARD - 19(4), NEW DELHI, .

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 2 Pelican Tobacco India Pvt. Ltd. 143(2) notice by the Assessing Officer. We are further taken to the learned CIT(A) detailed discussion deciding the same against the assessee and in the Revenue’s favour as follows: “4.1 I have considered the material on record including written submission of the AR of the appellant filed in course

M/S. INDIA EXPOSITION MART LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

reassessment stating that the notice u/s\n143(2) dated 18.05.2014 & 22.12.2014 have become time barred u/s\n153(2) of the I.T.Act. Further, assessee stating in its reply that the notice\nu/s 148 was issued on 10.03.2013 therefore the assessment order u/s\n148 of the I.T.Act should have been passed within one year from the\nend of Financial Year in which

VINOD MONGIA,WAST AZAD NAGAR, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VIKAS BHAWAN,DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Vinod Mongia, Vs Ito, C-40, Street No.1A, West Ward-58(7), Azad Nagar, Delhi-110005. Vikas Bhawan, Pan-Akhpm6218R Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Jain, Adv. & Shri Nitin Kanwar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025

section was mandatory to be issued within 6 months from the end of the FY in which the return is furnished i.e., by 30.09.2020, whereas in the instant case, the notice u/s 143(2) was never issued and re-assessment order was passed on 29.12.2019. It was the submission by Ld. AR that as the notice u/s 143(2

KRISHAN KUMAR MAKRANIA PRO. M/S. MAKRANIA OIL MILL,,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, GURGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

2) of the Act has been issued in the reassessment proceedings pursuant to the return filed by the 6 Krishna Kumar Makrania assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Later the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) read with section 147

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

section 143(3) read with sextion 147. Or in other words A.O. accepted the request of the assessee. This in turn makes it obligatory to issue notice u/s 143(2) after the request by the assessee to treat his earlier return as filed in pursuance to notices u/s 148 of the IT Act was received. This request, in the given

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 void.” 3.1 Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has neither been issued nor served in this case before completion of the assessment. This fact can be verified with the assessment order itself where there is no mention about issue of notice u/s 143(2). Further, order sheet maintained by the Ld. AO confirmed the same. There

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 void.” 3.1 Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has neither been issued nor served in this case before completion of the assessment. This fact can be verified with the assessment order itself where there is no mention about issue of notice u/s 143(2). Further, order sheet maintained by the Ld. AO confirmed the same. There

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 u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 as the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on the very

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 u/s 143(3) r.w. section 147 as the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on the very

SANTOSH MAHALINGAM,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Tarvinder Singh Kapoor & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Santosh Mahalingam, Vs Acit, No.1, Santosh Nagar, Pratap Central Circle-6, Vihar, Ghaziabad-201009. New Delhi. Pan-Cjkps5766C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri H.K.Choudhary, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2022

147 and 143(3) of the I.T. Act to pass the assessment order against the assessee. He has submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 was passed on 28.03.2013. 3. That the Ld. AO has erred in framing assessment u/s 148 read with section 143(3) after treating the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 on 12.10.2012 as non-est. 4. That the reasons recorded and the reopening u/s 148 is bad in law since, no proper approval as required in section

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 was passed on 28.03.2013. 3. That the Ld. AO has erred in framing assessment u/s 148 read with section 143(3) after treating the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 on 12.10.2012 as non-est. 4. That the reasons recorded and the reopening u/s 148 is bad in law since, no proper approval as required in section

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 was passed on 28.03.2013. 3. That the Ld. AO has erred in framing assessment u/s 148 read with section 143(3) after treating the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 on 12.10.2012 as non-est. 4. That the reasons recorded and the reopening u/s 148 is bad in law since, no proper approval as required in section

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

u/s 143(2) is hereby quashed.\n\n9. Since we have already allowed the legal grounds raised by the assessee\ntherefore, other grounds became academic hence, not adjudicated.\n\n10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\n\nOrder pronounced in the open Court on 30.05.2025.\n\nSd/-\n(SATBEER SINGH GODARA)\nJUDICIAL MEMBER

P M NARGUNAM,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 304/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15) बनाम P M Nargunam, Acit No. 1, Santosh Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-6, Pratap Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Aaepn9976E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

147 and 143(3) of the I.T. Act to pass the assessment order against the assessee. He has submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the I.T.A.No.304/Del/2020 assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications

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

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

147 read with section 148 is justified and AO has correctly assumed jurisdiction. b. The ground and contention related to the issue of notice uls 143[2] has been adjudicated vide para 5.1, 5.2 [Page 6]. In this regard reliance has been taken by the Ld CIT[A] on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court

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

2) of Section 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 or recompute escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the Assessing Officer that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

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

2) of Section 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 or recompute escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the Assessing Officer that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment