GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the results all the appeals filed by the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

145(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 solely on the ground of alleged not verifiable/bogus purchases. 4. Genuineness of Partly Summarized in below para. purchases made decided in favour of assessee The bench noted that in the second round of litigation even the ld. CIT(A) also given the same finding as it was in the first round of litigation

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

145(3) by rejecting the books. 35. That the learned appellate authority has molded the facts as per his convenience, which is wrong. It is mentioned as reproduced above that learned assessing authority had asked for “bills/Vouchers etc.” through notice u/s 142(1), i.e. they have specifically asked for purchase and sales bills. But it is to be submitted that

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

145(3) by rejecting the books. 35. That the learned appellate authority has molded the facts as per his convenience, which is wrong. It is mentioned as reproduced above that learned assessing authority had asked for “bills/Vouchers etc.” through notice u/s 142(1), i.e. they have specifically asked for purchase and sales bills. But it is to be submitted that

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

M/S SILVEX & CO.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 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 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

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.

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

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.

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

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.

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made