SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 69 and therefore, the burden lies on the Assessing officer to prove that the investment by way of cash loans has infact taken place and the amount so invested belongs to the assessee and the burden is on the Revenue to first prove the said allegations by leading positive evidence. In this regard, our reference was drawn

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 69 and therefore, the burden lies on the Assessing officer to prove that the investment by way of cash loans has infact taken place and the amount so invested belongs to the assessee and the burden is on the Revenue to first prove the said allegations by leading positive evidence. In this regard, our reference was drawn

DCIT, CC-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S. DANGAYACH HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 69. Therefore, it was held that provisions section 69 are not attracted as neither the Assessing officer discharged the initial burden cast upon him to prove investment nor any material has been brought on record to this effect and additions were held to be rightly deleted by the ld CIT(A) and the relevant findings of the Coordinate Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

reassessment were dealt with by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Tribunal in the appellant case for the assessment year 2015-16. Based on same set of facts, the Hon'ble Tribunal made a decision in favor of the appellant for the assessment year 2015-16. As stated above in this order, the AO is bound to follow the Hon'ble jurisdictional

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

SHREE AURO IRON LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263.\nIn view of the above factual and legal position, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in\nassuming jurisdiction u/s 263. Thus, the entire order by ld.PCIT deserves to be\nquashed\"\nGROUND No. 3:\nThat on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Principal\nCommissioner of Income-tax erred in passing the impugned order u/s.263

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)

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating

MODERN INSULATORS LIMITED ,ABU ROAD vs. ITO(TJ)O-O THE PR. CIT-2,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmodern Insulators Limited, A-4, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur 302 004 Pan No.: Aabcm 0860G ...... Appellant Vs.

reassessment jurisdiction to correct his own lapse is not permissible in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gemini Leather Stores (supra). 7. Ld. AR also submitted that the reopening has been done without application of mind and on borrowed satisfaction based merely on the information received from investigation wing Kolkata. He drew

LISAMMA SEBASTIAN,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

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

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

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recomputed the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in this section and in section

NITU KHADARIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), NCRB BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be.] (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.] 18 SMT. NITU KHADARIYIA VS ITO,WARD 1(3), JAIPUR The first proviso to Section 149 of the Act provides that no notice under section 148 shall be issued

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

reassessment is\npassed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section\n153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically.\nThe Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional\nCIT resulting in vitiating

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

reassessment is\npassed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section\n153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically.\nThe Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional\nCIT resulting in vitiating

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

reassessment is\npassed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section\n153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically.\nThe Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional\nCIT resulting in vitiating

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

reassessment is\npassed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section\n153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically.\nThe Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such\napproval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional\nCIT resulting in vitiating

GAJENDRA NATH SRIVASTAV THROUGH L/H VIPIN DEVI SRIVASTAV,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

233 ITR 200 (SC)], it was observed "An appeal does not lie agamst an order which merely sets aside an assessment and remands the matter for fresh adjudication" 2.3 These judgments confirm that when the CIT(A) sets aside an order and remands the matter to the AO, no appealable "order" exists, and such appeals are not maintainable under section

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings along with the reasons recordedand has not provided the same to the Appellant even at the time ofassessmentproceedings.Moreover,itishumblysubmittedbeforeyourhonour that the Hon’ble High Court in the case mentioned above hasfurther held that the reasons to believe recorded by the A.O. shoulddiscloseallthereasonsrecordedbytheA.O.forinitiationofreassessmentproceed ings.ThereasonstobelieveconveyedtoAppellantshouldalsoac companythecomment/endorsementofthesuperiorauthoritywhichintheextantcasehas notbeencommunicatedbyyourgoodselftotheAssessee.Itistobeappreciatedthat the reasons to believe should also accompany the sanctions ofapprovalfromthehigherauthorityforinitiationofproceedingsu/s147oftheAct.Same wasnotprovidedbytheLd.A.O.totheAppellantwiththe “reasonstobelieve”. • ItissubmittedthattheHon

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings along with the reasons recordedand has not provided the same to the Appellant even at the time ofassessmentproceedings.Moreover,itishumblysubmittedbeforeyourhonour that the Hon’ble High Court in the case mentioned above hasfurther held that the reasons to believe recorded by the A.O. shoulddiscloseallthereasonsrecordedbytheA.O.forinitiationofreassessmentproceed ings.ThereasonstobelieveconveyedtoAppellantshouldalsoac companythecomment/endorsementofthesuperiorauthoritywhichintheextantcasehas notbeencommunicatedbyyourgoodselftotheAssessee.Itistobeappreciatedthat the reasons to believe should also accompany the sanctions ofapprovalfromthehigherauthorityforinitiationofproceedingsu/s147oftheAct.Same wasnotprovidedbytheLd.A.O.totheAppellantwiththe “reasonstobelieve”. • ItissubmittedthattheHon