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

u/s 143(3):\n•\nComplete books of accounts and other documents as required by the ld. AO were\nproduced for verification.\nThese books and relevant documents were duly verified by the ld. AO.\nThe material consumed expenditure / सामग्री व्यय was verified by the ld. AO as\nhas been stated at length in the show cause notice and also the assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 147 are for the benefit of revenue and are aimed at gathering the "escaped income" of an assessee. It ITA No. 960/JP/2018 & CO No.05/JP/2020 9 M/s Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust vs. ITO (E) has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that although for reassessment of income there must exist reasons to believe that income has escaped

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

reassessment\norder passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 is\nbad in law—Assessee's grounds allowed.\nPrayer: Thus in view of the above facts, circumstances and the legal position of\nlaw the proceedings so initiated and assessment so passed may kindly be\nquashed.\n4. The Id. AO has denied the exemption u/s

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

reassessment\norder passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 is\nbad in law—Assessee's grounds allowed.\nPrayer: Thus in view of the above facts, circumstances and the legal position of\nlaw the proceedings so initiated and assessment so passed may kindly be\nquashed.\n4. The Id. AO has denied the exemption u/s

SUSHILA DEVI JANGID,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 374/JP/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2010-11 Smt. Sushila Devi Jangid 65, Koshaliya Vihar Hajyawala,Muhana Mandi Ke Pass, Sanganer, Jaipur 302 029 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFMPJ 2091 P निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Utkarsh Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by :Shri Gautam Sing

Reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act for relevant A.Y still reflect as on-going proceedings under ‘For your action’ list on ‘e-proceedings’ tab on the Income Tax profile of the assessee. Also, there is no Order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 dated 24.12.2017 available under ‘For your information’ list on ‘e- proceedings’ tab on the income tax profile

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

147\nof the Act. Therefore, the argument of the appellant are not found to be\nacceptable.\nFurther the addition made by the AO are based on return filed in response to\nnotice issued u/s 148. Before the notice, there was no return filed by the\nassessee. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 is found to be valid. The\nappellant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 131 on the address of above companies requesting furnishing of books of accounts, details of bank accounts, copies of Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur ITR and other documents, but the same could not be served due to non-existence of the companies on their respective given addresses. From the Database of the department, it is gathered that

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

147\nof the Act. Therefore, the argument of the appellant are not found to be\nacceptable.\n\nFurther the addition made by the AO are based on return filed in response to\nnotice issued u/s 148. Before the notice, there was no return filed by the\nassessee. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 is found to be valid. The\nappellant

SWAMI KESHWANAND SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,SIKAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 309 & 310/Jp/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke I.T.O. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Ward-2, N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 Jaipur (Rajasthan). (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 17/09/2020 & 10/09/2020 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

147 and issued notice u/s 148 on 25.03.2019. The assessee several times requested the A.O. to supply the reasons for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act but the A.O. not supplied the reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s 148. It is worthwhile to mention here that it is law of land that the reasons recorded for issue

SWAMI KESHWANAND SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,SIKAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 309 & 310/Jp/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke I.T.O. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Ward-2, N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 Jaipur (Rajasthan). (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 17/09/2020 & 10/09/2020 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

147 and issued notice u/s 148 on 25.03.2019. The assessee several times requested the A.O. to supply the reasons for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act but the A.O. not supplied the reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s 148. It is worthwhile to mention here that it is law of land that the reasons recorded for issue

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

exempt u/s 10(38) of I.T. Act. After filing the\nreturn (APB 1), the case was reopened u/s 148 / 147 and while doing so\nthe ld. AO has observed at page 2 of the assessment order that on the\nbasis of information collected during search / survey operations\nbeneficiaries of such bogus LTCG were also identified. The assessee is\none

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

reassessment notice, had to apply his mind and form opinion—Mere appending of expression ‘approved’ says nothing—It was not as if CIT (A) had to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with noting put up—At same time, satisfaction had to be recorded of given case which could be reflected in briefest possible manner—In present case, exercise appears

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

reassessment notice, had to apply his mind and form opinion—Mere appending of expression ‘approved’ says nothing—It was not as if CIT (A) had to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with noting put up—At same time, satisfaction had to be recorded of given case which could be reflected in briefest possible manner—In present case, exercise appears

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

Reassessment pursuant to material found in search can be done through recourse to section 153C only and not by invoking the provisions of section 147/148. 1.12. The provisions of section 153C are over-riding in nature and contain non obstante clause for sections 139,147,148,149,151 and 153. 1.13. Section 147 and 153C are not interchangeable

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

exemptions, claims or loss etc.\nSince an appeal is nothing but the claim of the appellant that he has been unduly\nunjustifiably taxed or levied fee/interest, it is for the appellant to prove its case. The\nappellant has not availed any opportunity to do so.\nFrom the conduct of the appellant as per the facts noted above, it is clear

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), 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 u/s 147 - Valid sanction u/s 151 - “prescribed authority” as to whether it should be the jurisdictional commissioner or Principal Commissioner under section 151(i) or the Principal Chief Commissioner under clause (ii) of the Act, as the case may be - HELD THAT:- Section 151(ii) approval in the instant case involving escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs

GOYAL VEGOILS LIMITED ,KASAR ,KOTA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE -2, KOTA

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147 of the Act is bad in law and needs to be quashed. 1.15 The Hon’ble ITAT, Surat in the case of Sandipkumar Parsottambhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 08 & 09/SRT/2019 vide its judgement dated 29.11.2021, in exactly identical circumstances, following their earlier decision in the cases of Nishant Kantilal Patel & Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel has quashed the reassessment

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

147. Thus, the\naforesaid decision was not available on the day when Ld. AO passed the\nsubjected Order on 15.04.2021. Therefore, the Ld. AO has committed\nno mistake because the Apex Court decision was not available before\nhim. It is not the case that the adjudication of the assessment is still\nopen, before Ld.AO after the availability of the Apex

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

reassessment. 243-244 the CBDT Thus, notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 is notification without jurisdiction. Case Laws: Hexaware Technologies Limited vs Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax , Circle 15(1)(2) , Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2023 06. Addition At the outset, the impugned addition is not sustainable as WS-11 made for the very proceedings u/s