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

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

section 263 of the Act, and as such the impugned order passed in the given facts and circumstances, deserves to be upheld. In the case of Amitabh Bachhan‘s case (supra), cited on behalf of the department, while dealing with powers for reopening of assessment of the concluded assessment u/s 147 of the Act and to revise the assessment u/s

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)

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act was not valid and the same is quashed. The appeal on Ground No 1 to 1.3 are thus allowed. 1. In view of the above decision on Ground No 1 to 1.3, appeal on Ground No 2 to 2.4, 3, 4 and 5 have become infructuous and no further adjudication is required on merits

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

20 days while the assessee-appellant\nremained ill for a period of 30 days and after getting well he got the appeal\nsubmission prepared within a week's time from his consultant which may be\nconsidered well within period of limitation.\n3\nITA No. 359/JPR/2024\nShri Ashok Sharma vs. ACIT\nIt is, therefore, requested to your honours to please condone

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

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

reassessment after four years from the\nrelevant assessment year on ground that it has already made true and full disclosure of\nthe information necessary for assessment in the assessment proceedings concluded u/s\n143(3). The appellant submitted that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) after\nverifying all the documentary evidences sought including those related to capital raised by\nthe

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

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

20,00,385 was added. The appellant\nalso submitted that since it has been legally settled that the AO is not entitled to reopen a\nreturn for review and since in this case, the AO issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act on\n28/03/2019 merely as a process of review, the reassessment is not legally invalid. The\nappellant relied

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

reassessment after four years from the\nrelevant assessment year on ground that it has already made true and full disclosure of\nthe information necessary for assessment in the assessment proceedings concluded u/s\n143(3). The appellant submitted that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) after\nverifying all the documentary evidences sought including those related to capital raised by\nthe

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

SAVITA GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO, DELHI

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

20,000/-. Relying solely on this document, the Ld. AO reopened the assessment under section 147 on 28.04.2020 and passed an order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B. 2. The critical legal question that arises here is: Can proceedings under section 148 of the Act be initiated,as on 28.04.2020,against a person other than the searched person, where the only basis

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)

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) is also illegal and void ab initio

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

20. It was further submitted by the ld A/R that the entire re-assessment proceedings were based on the information received from DCIT, Central Circle, 3 during the course of search u/s 132 and Assessing Officer should have taken recourse to section 153C and not section 147, for carrying out impugned re- assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

20. It was further submitted by the ld A/R that the entire re-assessment proceedings were based on the information received from DCIT, Central Circle, 3 during the course of search u/s 132 and Assessing Officer should have taken recourse to section 153C and not section 147, for carrying out impugned re- assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

reassessment under Sections 139,147,148,149,151 & 153. " In view of the above discussion, the assessment completed u/s 144 deserves to be quashed. The order of the Learned CIT(A) also deserved to be quashed on this ground. Additional Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, 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. 59/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 7/58, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Ward 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Advpa 6150 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 27/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Learned C.I.T. (A) Has Erred For Not Considering The Issue For Validity Of Issue Notice U/S 148 Of I.T. Act, 1961, While There Was No Escapement Of Income On Part Of Assessee. The Initiation Of Proceedings Was Only On Behest Of I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Who Has Intimated To A.O. For Advancement Of Loan Rs.53,95,000/- Given By Assessee To Pooja Agarwal, While Concern A.O. Has Accepted Said Loan In Her Hands After Detailed Examination. Hence Initiation Of 2

reassessment order. The Assessing Officer having indicated the specific amount of alleged short levy of interest had to return a conclusive finding resulting in an addition. There 14 ITA 59/JP/2019_ Vijay Kr Agarwal Vs ITO was none. Therefore, even in respect of reason (b) there was no addition made.” Additional Ground No. 1C Ld. Joint CIT, Range-4, Jaipur

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 of the Act which is not applicable in\nthe instant case. Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench in case of\nBalaji Healthcare Pvt Ltd (supra) wherein the relevant findings read as under:\n\"20...\n.Further, it is noted that after recording of the\nreasons, the Assessing officer has subsequently written a letter

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 of the Act which is not applicable in\nthe instant case. Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench in case of\nBalaji Healthcare Pvt Ltd (supra) wherein the relevant findings read as under:\n\n\"20...\n.Further, it is noted that after recording of the\nreasons, the Assessing officer has subsequently written a letter

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 of the Act which is not applicable in\nthe instant case. Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench in case of\nBalaji Healthcare Pvt Ltd (supra) wherein the relevant findings read as under:\n\"20...\n.Further, it is noted that after recording of the\nreasons, the Assessing officer has subsequently written a letter

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 of the Act which is not applicable in\nthe instant case. Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench in case of\nBalaji Healthcare Pvt Ltd (supra) wherein the relevant findings read as under:\n\"20...\n.Further, it is noted that after recording of the\nreasons, the Assessing officer has subsequently written a letter

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)

u/s 148 was not served by the AO who passed the order and consequential by the order of assessment lacks jurisdiction. Ld. DR has not disputed the primary facts Ld. AR has relied upon the decision of our Hon’ble High Court in Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta vs. ITO the case of Mrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs