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

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

145(3) of the Act are allowed. The objection No. 3 is dismissed\nas not pressed.\nAppeal to High Court / First round of litigation\n11. Feeling dissatisfied the revenue filed appeal before Hon'ble\nRajasthan High Court challenging the order passed by ITAT in the above\ncase. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, vide order dated 03.05.2017\nremanded matter back

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

145(3) of the Act are allowed. The objection No. 3 is dismissed\nas not pressed.\nAppeal to High Court / First round of litigation\n11. Feeling dissatisfied the revenue filed appeal before Hon'ble\nRajasthan High Court challenging the order passed by ITAT in the above\ncase. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, vide order dated 03.05.2017\nremanded matter back

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

145(3) of the Act are allowed. The objection No. 3 is dismissed\nas not pressed.\nAppeal to High Court / First round of litigation\n11. Feeling dissatisfied the revenue filed appeal before Hon'ble\nRajasthan High Court challenging the order passed by ITAT in the above\ncase. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, vide order dated 03.05.2017\nremanded matter back

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

145(3) of the Act are allowed. The objection No. 3 is dismissed\nas not pressed."\nAppeal to High Court / First round of litigation\n11. Feeling dissatisfied the revenue filed appeal before Hon'ble\nRajasthan High Court challenging the order passed by ITAT in the above\ncase. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, vide order dated 03.05.2017\nremanded matter back

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

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

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

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

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

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