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.

Reassessment under section 13 ITA 264/JP/2017_ Ramakant Sharma Vs ITO 147 read with section 143(3)- Condition precedent- Notice u/s 143

M/S. RAJDHANI CRAFTS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4 JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 292BB of the Act. 6. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The undisputed facts as emerged from the records are that the original assessment was completed U/s 143(3) of the Act on 01/03/2013. Thereafter the A.O. issued notice U/s 148 of the Act on 01/11/2013 to reassess

SHRI GOVIND NARAIN JOHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Although The Second Round Of Assessment Was Completed At The Directions Of Hon’Ble Itat.

3) of section 143. 18. On a consideration of the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Act, we are in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion reached by the High Court.” Thus the requirement of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is a mandatory condition and cannot be dispensed with. It was also held that

M/S. KAIZEN ORGANICS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee. The Notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory requirement and gives the jurisdiction to the AO to proceed with the scrutiny assessment. Thus the notice under section 143(2) is a jurisdictional condition and in the absence of notice under section 143(2), the order passed by the AO is invalid

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Section 143(3) of the Act. If such an order is already in existence, having obviously been passed prior to the initiation of the search/requisition, the Assessing Officer is empowered to reopen those proceedings and reassess

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

3) of section 143 or under section 144 in the cases referred to in sub-section (2) [other than the cases transferred under sub-section (8)], on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, shall be non est if such assessment is not made in accordance with the procedure laid down under this section." (emphasis supplied) 14. Keeping

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section rate of 12.5% on bogus 145(3) and GP rate was applied. Since the purchases. assessment was already completed u/s 143(3) therefore, the facts of the case are totally distinguishable from the case relied upon by revenue the where no assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and reassessment

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section rate of 12.5% on bogus 145(3) and GP rate was applied. Since the purchases. assessment was already completed u/s 143(3) therefore, the facts of the case are totally distinguishable from the case relied upon by revenue the where no assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and reassessment

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

section 147/148 of the Act are not applicable in such cases. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice. Accordingly, we hold that initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 by the A.O. to reassess the income is illegal being without jurisdiction and consequently the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143 (3

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) read with section\n158BC, notice under section 143(2) should be issued within one year from the date of\nfiling of block return. Omission on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice\nunder section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable\nand, therefore, requirement of notice under section 143(2) cannot

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

143(3), had also considered the cash payment aspect of the\nexpenditure, which has been re-visited/reviewed in the reassessment proceedings u/s 147\n(by mentioning the provisions of section

V C GRANITES,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings on the finding that the same stood vitiated as the assessment Officer lacked jurisdiction in absence of notice under Section 143(2) of the act of 1961. …… Para 8. The law on the point as regards applicability of the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is quite clear from the decision in Blue Moon

DCIT, AJMER vs. M/S V.C. GRANITE, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings on the finding that the same stood vitiated as the assessment Officer lacked jurisdiction in absence of notice under Section 143(2) of the act of 1961. …… Para 8. The law on the point as regards applicability of the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is quite clear from the decision in Blue Moon

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

reassessment on the total income as assessed under section 143(1)or 143(3)of the IT Act.The common facts

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment on the total income as assessed under section 143(1)or 143(3)of the IT Act.The common facts

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment on the total income as assessed under section 143(1)or 143(3)of the IT Act.The common facts

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment on the total income as assessed under section 143(1)or 143(3)of the IT Act.The common facts

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

reassess the total income of six assessment years falling within the period of those six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year in which search is conducted. Under the new provisions of section 153A, the statute is provides wide powers to the Assessing Officer in respect of assessments already completed u/s 143(1) or 143(3

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 143(3) which is not permissible under law. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the reopening is not valid and, therefore, the reassessment