ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(2), AJMER

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, [ for shrot Act ] by ITO, Ward-2(2), Ajmer. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 124 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit stating the reasons for delay and prayed for condonation

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed return of income. Subsequently, a notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was issued to the assessee on 14/05/2012 and the assessment was completed by the A.O. U/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

section 145(3) arbitrarily. 5.1 That ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the rejection of books by solely relying upon statements of staff recorded during the course of survey. It is prayed that staff, whose statements were relied upon for rejecting books, was neither authorized, nor aware of all the places where stock was kept, thus rejection

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

section 145(3) arbitrarily. 5.1 That ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the rejection of books by solely relying upon statements of staff recorded during the course of survey. It is prayed that staff, whose statements were relied upon for rejecting books, was neither authorized, nor aware of all the places where stock was kept, thus rejection

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

section 145(3) arbitrarily. 5.1 That ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the rejection of books by solely relying upon statements of staff recorded during the course of survey. It is prayed that staff, whose statements were relied upon for rejecting books, was neither authorized, nor aware of all the places where stock was kept, thus rejection

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

condone the delay before this Appellate Tribunal. 4 Jitendra Kumar TahilramanI vs. ITO 6. Now coming to the merits of the dispute, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. In the facts and circumstances the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in making additions

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3 ACIT vs. M/s Rajasthan State Handloom Development corporation Ltd. condoned as the heavy work load cannot be a reason and the Revenue has failed to establish the reasonable cause. Based on these reasons he submitted the appeal should not be admitted as the same is without any reasonable cause. 4. We have heard the rival contention of the parties

SMT. RUKSANA,JHALAWAR vs. ITO, WARD, JHALAWAR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 192/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Ruksana, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. L/H Of Late Sh. Mohammed Salim, Ward-Jhalawar. Kunjda Street, Bada Bazar, Jhalawar City, Jhalawar-326001. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Bjeps 1293 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kota Dated 21/09/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Dated 15.03.2014 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Being Debatable Issue & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2.1 Rs.13,45,442/-: The Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Invoking The Provision Of Section 145(3). The Provision So Invoked By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

section 145(3). The provision so invoked by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2 ITA 192/JP/2020 _ Smt. Ruksana Vs ITO 2.2 Alternatively and without prejudice the ld. CIT(A) further erred

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 2. Sant Kabir Mahasabha Versus The CIT (Exemption) Chandigarh (ITA No. 84/CHD/2023) (ITAT, Chandigarh) Merely uploading of information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an effective service of notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. The impugned order

SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 4. Both these appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue for the same assessment year. The Grounds of appeal raised by each party are as under:- ITA No. 910/JP/2019 (Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 4. Both these appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue for the same assessment year. The Grounds of appeal raised by each party are as under:- ITA No. 910/JP/2019 (Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 44AB. The AO failed to point out any specific defects in the books of accounts that would warrant rejection u/s 145(3). The rejection was mechanical and arbitrary without proper application of mind. 2. The ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the arbitrary estimation of income at 8% of turnover and making addition

M/S. RAGHUVEER METALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ,AJMER vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 297/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., 21, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer cuke Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 7496 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1039/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ce

condone the delay in filing this appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted to be decided on its merit. 5. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed e- return on 25.09.2012 declaring income at Rs. 1,36,16,910. The case was selected for scrutiny and consequently the assessment was completed

ACIT, ALWAR vs. RAGHUVEER METAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., AJMER

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 297/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., 21, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer cuke Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 7496 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1039/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ce

condone the delay in filing this appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted to be decided on its merit. 5. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed e- return on 25.09.2012 declaring income at Rs. 1,36,16,910. The case was selected for scrutiny and consequently the assessment was completed

SATISH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 145(3), treatment, out of total SBN'S of Rs. 26,00,000/- deposited in the bank by the assessee, SBN'S of Rs. 20,00,000/- as undisclosed income and consequently adding the same i.ec. Rs. 20,00,000/-u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE in the total taxable income of the assessee are most arbitrary, unjust and untenable

M/S MOJIKA REAL ESTATE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

section 145(3) were invoked solely for the reason that books were not available as on the date of survey without appreciating the fact that loss of books in computer system is hyper technical and was beyond the control of assessee. It is also submitted that book of accounts maintained by assessee have been accepted in A.Y. 2015-16 where

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR vs. M/S MOJIKA REAL ESTATE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

section 145(3) were invoked solely for the reason that books were not available as on the date of survey without appreciating the fact that loss of books in computer system is hyper technical and was beyond the control of assessee. It is also submitted that book of accounts maintained by assessee have been accepted in A.Y. 2015-16 where

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

145(3) of the Act and in assuming the net profit at the rate of 10 percent against the net profit at the rate of 8 percent declared by the assessee appellant and in making the differential addition of Rs. 3,63,912/-. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities