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. Section 292BB of the Act cannot obviate the requirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing Officer to make an order of assessment under section 143(3

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

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

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. Section 292BB of the Act cannot obviate the requirement of complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing Officer to make an order of assessment under section 143(3

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.”

reassessment namely sections 147 to 151, as they existed prior to their amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "old law"). With effect from 1 April 2021, the old law has been substituted with new sections 147- 151 (hereinafter referred to as the "new law"). 3

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

3) were passed and in other cases the assessment was completed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thus the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 2nd July, 2015 and the AO would reassess

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

3) were passed and in other cases the assessment was completed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thus the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 2nd July, 2015 and the AO would reassess

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

3) were passed and in other cases the assessment was completed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thus the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 2nd July, 2015 and the AO would reassess

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

3) were passed and in other cases the assessment was completed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thus the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 2nd July, 2015 and the AO would reassess

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

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

3) of Section 50 C of the IT Act, 1961.\nThe additional grounds noted above arise out of the order of the learned\nCIT(A)/Assessing Officer and do not require support of any additional\nevidence, hence, the same deserve to be admitted by the Hon'ble Bench.\nThe following decisions are quoted in support -\n(i) National Thermal Power

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

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

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

3. For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the\nAssessing Officer may assess or reassess the income

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)

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 AO to reassess the income is illegal being without jurisdiction and consequently the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

reassessment.\n5.\nThe said section is not applicable in the present as the contentions raised are\nrelating to illegality of the Impugned Order as well as exercising power without authority\nof law and without jurisdiction.\n6.\nIn view of the above, the Ld. CIT(E) has wrongly contended that Appellant has\nparticipated in the proceedings therefore, it is precluded from

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

POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) were passed and in other cases the assessment was completed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thus the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 2nd July, 2015 and the AO would reassess

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