M/S ANUSHREE ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

u/s. 147 and, accordingly, penalty levied at Rs. 60, 275. The assessee filed appeal against both these orders as well. The quantum appeals were taken up together for hearing by the first appellate authority. The ld. CIT(A), as explained by Sh. Usrethe, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, observing two appeals for the same year, which were

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, DAMOH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

reassessment order dated 23/12/2013 is also bad in law. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) should have held that reopening of the assessment is bad in law. ITA No.175 & 176/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 4 3. Considering the fact that addition of Rs.2,40,580/- for assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.48

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, DAMOH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

reassessment order dated 23/12/2013 is also bad in law. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) should have held that reopening of the assessment is bad in law. ITA No.175 & 176/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 4 3. Considering the fact that addition of Rs.2,40,580/- for assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.48

M/S BINDRA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1),

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2008-09 Bindra Warehousing Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1(1), Corporation, Itarsi

reopening the assessee’s assessment for the relevant year was the assessee stating per its’ return of income of it being not liable to get its’ account audited u/s. 44AB of the Act. This was understood by the Assessing Officer (AO) as a non-conduct of the audit there-under and, inexplicably, audit u/s

SUNIL KUMAR PATHAK,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, , REWA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunil Kumar Pathak Vs. Ito, Ward – 1, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Shilpi Rewa-486001, Plaza, Pili Kothi, Madhya Pradesh. Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Arwpp9628A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassessment proceedings though the reasseement notice issue by the Assessing officer is defective and further the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing is sustaining the addition overlooking the voluminous material evidences filed in the assessment and appellate proceedings. On the first issue of validity of issue of notice U/sec148 of the Act, we find the Assessing

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 147 & 148.” 5.8 CIT vs. Pawan Gupta & Ors. [(2009) 318 ITR 322 (Del) Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in Para 38 of the order observed as under:- "Thus, we are of the clear view that where the assessing officer is not inclined to accept the return of undisclosed assessment filed by the assessee issuance of a notice under

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 147 & 148.” 5.8 CIT vs. Pawan Gupta & Ors. [(2009) 318 ITR 322 (Del) Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in Para 38 of the order observed as under:- "Thus, we are of the clear view that where the assessing officer is not inclined to accept the return of undisclosed assessment filed by the assessee issuance of a notice under

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 147 & 148.” 5.8 CIT vs. Pawan Gupta & Ors. [(2009) 318 ITR 322 (Del) Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in Para 38 of the order observed as under:- "Thus, we are of the clear view that where the assessing officer is not inclined to accept the return of undisclosed assessment filed by the assessee issuance of a notice under

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 147 & 148.” 5.8 CIT vs. Pawan Gupta & Ors. [(2009) 318 ITR 322 (Del) Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in Para 38 of the order observed as under:- "Thus, we are of the clear view that where the assessing officer is not inclined to accept the return of undisclosed assessment filed by the assessee issuance of a notice under

SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

147 of the Act, the power of revision under section 263 is not contingent on the giving of a notice to show cause. In fact, section 263 has been understood not to require any specific show-cause notice to be served on the assessee. Rather, what is required under the provision is an opportunity of hearing to the assessee

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT (A), SAGAR

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

Reassessment is Without Proper Foundation - Absence of Tangible Material The reopening of the assessment under section 147 is purely based on AIR-reported bank deposits without any independent verification or tangible evidence. This amounts to a borrowed satisfaction, which has been consistently held by judicial forums (including Harmeet Singh vs. ITO) as invalid and unsustainable in law. 5. Addition

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

Reassessment is Without Proper Foundation - Absence of Tangible Material The reopening of the assessment under section 147 is purely based on AIR-reported bank deposits without any independent verification or tangible evidence. This amounts to a borrowed satisfaction, which has been consistently held by judicial forums (including Harmeet Singh vs. ITO) as invalid and unsustainable in law. 5. Addition

KADEER KHAN,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

147 of the Act were initiated on 30/03/2019 upon receipt of information that the assessees had sold land for Rs. 50 lacs, as no capital gain (long term or short term), much less in terms of s. 50C, had been returned by them per their returns of income for the relevant year (copy of the reason/s recorded u/s

SHABANA KHAN,JABALPUR vs. PR-1, JABALPUR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

147 of the Act were initiated on 30/03/2019 upon receipt of information that the assessees had sold land for Rs. 50 lacs, as no capital gain (long term or short term), much less in terms of s. 50C, had been returned by them per their returns of income for the relevant year (copy of the reason/s recorded u/s

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,SAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

147 read with section 144B of the Act, dated 17/09/2021 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The background of facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, who had initially filed his return of income for the relevant year at Rs. 2,28,630, was subject to reassessment on account of failure to disclose fully and truly

VARSMA ENGINEERS GROUP,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Varhsma Engineer’S Group, Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Vijay Nagar, Circle – 1(1), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur (M.P.) [Pan: Aaefv 7885Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2021

147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 vide order dated 16/06/2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership firm in contract business, was assessed at a total income of Rs.6,19,810 for the relevant year vide assessment u/s