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 proceedings. The fact that on the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act, the assessee had placed its objection and reiterated its earlier return filed as one filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the Officer had also noted that the same would be considered for completing of assessment, would

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)

reassessment proceedings. The fact that on the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act, the assessee had placed its objection and reiterated its earlier return filed as one filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the Officer had also noted that the same would be considered for completing of assessment, would

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act. subject to\nfulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the\nRevenue cannot be left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment\nunder section 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and in case no\nincriminating material is found during the search, the power

DESH RAJ JAKHAR,GORDHANPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NEEM KA THANA

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

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

30,000 3 Savings of earlier years 3,20,000 4 Out of withdrawal of current year 1,89,500 5 Sale of property 6,15,000 59,09,500 6.2 The claims of the appellant were examined thoroughly during remand proceedings. 6.3 According to the appellant he received money (Rs.47,85,000) from 18 individuals who were his friends

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has\nescaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the\nproceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been\nincluded in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.]\n[Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts

SHRI SHRAVAN CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

reassessment order. 9. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that though the return might have been filed with Circle-2, Jaipur, however the processing under section 143(1) has been done by Circle-5, Jaipur and, therefore, the jurisdiction of AO Circle-5, Jaipur is based on the address shown in the PAN of the assessee

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

30 days of receipt of the notice. In\nresponse to the said notice u/s 153C, a return declaring an income of Rs.2,\n18,95,010/- was filed by the assessee on 16.02.2023. The jurisdictional AO\nhas issued notice u/s 143(2) dated 10.04.2023 and asked to file certain\ninformation/details in support of income during the year under\nconsideration. Thereafter

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)

2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, such Assessing Officer shall issue the notice and assess or reassess total income of such other person

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings against the 14 Late Sh. Birdi Chand vs. ITO dead person. The court further held that section 159 of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of that case, and that, even if section 159 is attracted, the notice was required to be issued in the name of the heirs of the deceased assessee. Mr. Dave

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings were held to be bad in law. 30. In Dina Nath v. CIT [1994] 72 Taxman 174 (J. & K.) the notice under Section 143 (2

KAMLA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

reassessment proceedings. The fact that on the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act, the assessee had placed its objection and reiterated its earlier return filed as one filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the Officer had also noted that the same would be considered for completing of ITA 1026/JP/2016_

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

30,520/- was considered by the AO as loan/advance and treated the same as 7 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has submitted that the assessee has explained before the AO as well as the ld. CIT (A) that the said amount

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

30,520/- was considered by the AO as loan/advance and treated the same as 7 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has submitted that the assessee has explained before the AO as well as the ld. CIT (A) that the said amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

30,520/- was considered by the AO as loan/advance and treated the same as 7 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has submitted that the assessee has explained before the AO as well as the ld. CIT (A) that the said amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

30,520/- was considered by the AO as loan/advance and treated the same as 7 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has submitted that the assessee has explained before the AO as well as the ld. CIT (A) that the said amount

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

30,520/- was considered by the AO as loan/advance and treated the same as 7 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has submitted that the assessee has explained before the AO as well as the ld. CIT (A) that the said amount

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the cash so found deposited in his bank account relates to cash receipt on sale of the plots of land. Based on field inspection done by an inspector of the Department and based on information received from Tehsildar, the AO determined that the assessee has sold 20 residential plots for an amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namely:— (i) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the case selected

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

2. These extended reassessment notices were issued by the Assessing Officers under the provision of section 148 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") following the procedure prescribed under various sections pertaining to reassessment namely sections 147 to 151, as they existed prior to their amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred