ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as\ninfructuous

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice\nshall be subject to the provisions of section-151.”\n[Emphasis has been supplied]\n\n7. Vide Cross-objection, the assessee has raised following\ngrounds;\n\n“1(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the\nreasons for issued of notice u/s 148 having

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

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

ALI MOHAMMAD,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5608/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Ali Mohammad Acit, Mohalla Kot Kachchi Saray, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Etopm2968E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2, submitted that Respondent No.l had initially granted prior approval physically. However, online approval was granted after that, which was uploaded by digital signature at 2.55 p.m. on 31/03/2019. He, therefore, submitted that there is substantial compliance of prior approval as contemplated by Section 151 of the Act. 11. It must be noted that Sections 147 and 148 grant power

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

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Assessing Officer has assessed the income as per the provisions of section 144 by making additions u/s 69A on account of unexplained money, amounting to Rs.59,18,00,000/- (amount received from 636 investors of AMR customers) and further initiated up penalty U/s

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Assessing Officer has assessed the income as per the provisions of section 144 by making additions u/s 69A on account of unexplained money, amounting to Rs.59,18,00,000/- (amount received from 636 investors of AMR customers) and further initiated up penalty U/s

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

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

ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD vs. KESHAV MEDICHEM P.LTD, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 148 is being obtained separately from the Principal Commissioner 'of Income Tax as per the provision of section 51 of the Act " 6. Various queries were raised during the course of assessment proceedings, which were duly replied by the assessee. 7. In its reply dated 28.12.2018, which is extracted at page 5 of the assessment order, the assessee categorically

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNLIGHT TOUR AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD., SAHIBABAD

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2007-08]

148(2), the Assessing Officer accepts the objections of the assessee and does not assess or reassess the income which was the basis of the notice, it would not be open to him to assess income under some other issue independently. Parliament when it enacted the provisions of section 147 with effect from 1-4-1989 clearly stipulated that

AJAY SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer himself has admitted that return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 18.10.2007. Considering the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which are undisputedly borrowed from somewhere else and considering the fact that he Assessing Officer has emphasised that the assessee did not file any return of income

SADHNA SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-35(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer himself has admitted that return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 18.10.2007. Considering the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which are undisputedly borrowed from somewhere else and considering the fact that he Assessing Officer has emphasised that the assessee did not file any return of income

AJAY SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer himself has admitted that return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 18.10.2007. Considering the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which are undisputedly borrowed from somewhere else and considering the fact that he Assessing Officer has emphasised that the assessee did not file any return of income

JYOTI ENGINEERING WORKS,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-35(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer himself has admitted that return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 18.10.2007. Considering the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which are undisputedly borrowed from somewhere else and considering the fact that he Assessing Officer has emphasised that the assessee did not file any return of income

SADHNA SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-35(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer himself has admitted that return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 18.10.2007. Considering the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which are undisputedly borrowed from somewhere else and considering the fact that he Assessing Officer has emphasised that the assessee did not file any return of income

M/s JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result the appeal is allowed and

u/s 148.” 8.3 It cannot be disputed and it is not the case of either side that the reasons extracted hereinabove did not precede the issuance of notice under Section 148(1) of the Act. The requirement for recordal of reasons by the Assessing Officer before issuing a notice is provided for under sub-section (2) of Section 148

UJJWAL MICROFINANCE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

147 r.w.s 148 of the Income Tax Act without making any enquiry to at least find out the fact of any transaction been entered or not by M/s While Collar Management Pvt. Ltd. with the assessee company. 2. Because the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the re-assessment proceedings on the basis