ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.153A:\nIn Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 0001 (Delhi), it was held that:\n\"Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return\nfiled by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the\nprevious return filed under Section 139 of the Act. For all purposes

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

132A, as the case may\nbe, shall abate.” What is clear from this is that Section 153A is in the nature of a\nsecond chance given to the assessee, which incidentally gives him an\nopportunity to make good omission, if any, in the original return. Once the A.O.\naccepts the revised return filed u/s 153A, the original return u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

132A, as the case may\nbe, shall abate.” What is clear from this is that Section 153A is in the nature of a\nsecond chance given to the assessee, which incidentally gives him an\nopportunity to make good omission, if any, in the original return. Once the A.O.\naccepts the revised return filed u/s 153A, the original return u/s

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

132A, as the case may\nbe, shall abate.” What is clear from this is that Section 153A is in the nature of a\nsecond chance given to the assessee, which incidentally gives him an\nopportunity to make good omission, if any, in the original return. Once the A.O.\naccepts the revised return filed u/s 153A, the original return u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

132A, as the case may\nbe, shall abate.” What is clear from this is that Section 153A is in the nature of a\nsecond chance given to the assessee, which incidentally gives him an\nopportunity to make good omission, if any, in the original return. Once the A.O.\naccepts the revised return filed u/s 153A, the original return u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

132A, as the case may\nbe, shall abate.” What is clear from this is that Section 153A is in the nature of a\nsecond chance given to the assessee, which incidentally gives him an\nopportunity to make good omission, if any, in the original return. Once the A.O.\naccepts the revised return filed u/s 153A, the original return u/s

POOJA UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 153A: 5.1 In Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal 2017) 393 ITR 0001 (Delhi), it was held that: “Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed under Section

SHUBHAM JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - TONK, MAHA DEVALI, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 153C on 30.03.2018, in response to which the assessee filed ITR on 13.04.2018, disclosing an income of Rs.1,68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been inventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A- Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. 28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated below – S.No. Exhibit No. Description

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 153C on 30.03.2018, in response to which the assessee filed ITR on 13.04.2018, disclosing an income of Rs.1,68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been inventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A- Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. 28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated below – S.No. Exhibit No. Description

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 153C on 30.03.2018, in response to which the assessee filed ITR on 13.04.2018, disclosing an income of Rs.1,68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been inventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A- Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. 28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated below – S.No. Exhibit No. Description

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)

132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re- opened by the AO exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the condition as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answere accordingly

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 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)

132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re- opened by the AO exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the condition as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answere accordingly

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\nwere also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee\npreferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed the\nappeal ex-parte and confirmed the additions made by the AO, stating that\nthe appellant could not controvert the findings given

ANSHUL JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\nwere also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee\npreferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed the\nappeal ex-parte and confirmed the additions made by the AO, stating that\nthe appellant could not controvert the findings given

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\nwere also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee\npreferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed the\nappeal ex-parte and confirmed the additions made by the AO, stating that\nthe appellant could not controvert the findings given

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 153C on 30.03.2018, in response\nto which the assessee filed ITR on 13.04.2018, disclosing an income of\nRs.1,68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been\ninventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A-\n28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated\nbelow -\nS.No.\nExhibit No.\n& Page No.\nDescription

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 153C on 30.03.2018, in response\nto which the assessee filed ITR on 13.04.2018, disclosing an income of\nRs.1,68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been\ninventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A-\n28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated\nbelow -\nS.No.\nExhibit No.\n& Page No.\nDescription

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved." The perusal of the aforesaid para of the Supreme Court decision makes it clear that