KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

147 and section 148 of the Income\r\nTax Act 1961 itself provide the opportunity to assessee for filing the return of\r\nincome, hence we could not say that the Income Tax Return was late filed. And\r\nthe Return filed u/s 148 is treated as filed u/s 139 and all the provision are\r\napplicable for the same

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 proceedings and the order, dated 25/05/2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act are quashed as bad in law being 10 Late Shri Jitendra Nagar through L/R Smt. Deepika Nagar, Baran. violative of the provisions contained in Section 148A(d), Section 148 and Section 151(ii) of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 148, before making the assessment u/s 147, the AO is required to serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish return of his income. Thus service of notice u/s 148 is a condition precedent to make the assessment u/s 147. In the present case, as evident from the assessment order, AO issued notice u/s 148

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassess six\npreceding years and the year of search.\n• For concluded assessments, additions can only be made based on\nincriminating material found during the search.\nCitation:\n• CIT v. Singhad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC)\nThe AO acted same and addition was made on seized documents only, THE\nOWNER SHIP OF SEIZED DOCUMENT IS NOT DENIED

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

148 of the is barred by the limitation and therefore consequential order passed u/s 147 of the Act is void-ab-initio and addition so made deserves to be deleted outrightly. Reassessment is done in violation to provisions of section

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings and the Assessment Order, dated 11.05.2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act are quashed. 10 Even if the argument of the revenue is accepted that the since the time limit for issuance of notice was not expired in this case being A. Y. 2017-18 the notice issued u/s. 148

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)

148? 2.2 In ITA No. 873/JP/2024 the revenue has raised the following grounds; 1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in quashing the reopening and reassessment u/s 147 of the Act ignoring that the case was reopened as per provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to section

SHREE SHYAM BUILDSTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD -1, SIKAR

u/s 147, while issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. According to theAO, it was a case of escaped assessment of Rs11.00 lacs as per information received from DDIT, as is available from the assessment order, and as such, various notices came to be issued to the assessee,in reply to which he submitted the information / documents, consideration

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)

u/s 148 reopen the assessment of those six assessment year which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of section 153A. Though, both provisions of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess the income escaped from assessment, both sections are dealing with different situations. Section 147

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)

u/s 148 reopen the assessment of those six assessment year which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of section 153A. Though, both provisions of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess the income escaped from assessment, both sections are dealing with different situations. Section 147

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

reassessment proceedings initiated by notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were not legally transferred by the Chief Commissioner/Director General, Kolkata after recording and communicating the reasons and providing opportunity to the appellant as prescribed u/s 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case

SAVITA GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO, DELHI

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A.” 4. Section 153C of the Act begins with a non-obstante clause and overrides sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151, and 153. It mandates that if during a search (initiated on or before 31st March, 2021], any books of account, documents

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 148, before making the\nassessment u/s 147, the AO is required to serve on the assessee a notice\nrequiring him to furnish return of his income. Thus service of notice u/s 148 is a\ncondition precedent to make the assessment u/s 147. In the present case, as\nevident from the assessment order, AO issued notice u/s 148

VINITA BAJORIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

section 147, and • The reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 be kindly held to be without jurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S. No. Particulars Page Nos. 1. Synopsis of the Case

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

u/s 147/1448 of the Income-\ntax Act dated 13.12.2019 Assessing total Income at Rs 90,97,047/-.\n5. 2. It is further noted and as detailed in preceding para above that during\nthe appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any substantial written\nsubmission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal\nchallenging the addition. The onus lies

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 147 has been provided, however no such copy was furnished to\nthe appellant during assessment proceedings.\n\n2.5 In view of above, it is evident that the notice under section 147 and further assessment\nproceedings were invalid.\n\nGround of Appeal No. 2-\n\nThat the Ld. Assessing Officer is not justified making addition amounting to Rs.15

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

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

148?\n2.2 In ITA No. 873/JP/2024 the revenue has raised the following grounds;\n1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified\nin quashing the reopening and reassessment u/s 147 of the Act ignoring that the\ncase was reopened as per provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to section

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

section 40A(3). The payments were made at different dates as was replied by the\nassessee alongwith complete details in the reply to notice u/s 154 and also to notice u/s 148 in\nthe proceedings of reassessment. The reply by the assessee was made part of the order u/s 147

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Reassessment proceedings were completed—Assessee claimed that the notice u/s 147 was unsustainable because it was not approved by the competent authority in accordance with Section 151—CIT(A) sanctioned re-assessment proceedings through issuance of notice u/s 148