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)

reassessment as prescribed in sub section (2) of section 150, limitation provided u/s 149 has to be counted from the end of relevant assessment year till date of order which is subject matter of appeal wherein directions were passed. It is also submitted that the order(s) of Ld. CIT (A) – IV, Jaipur in which direction for re-opening

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)

section 147, the AO had to establish failure on the part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material fact necessary for assessment which is a pre-requisite for issue of notice u/s 148 Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur beyond 4 years. In the instant case, I find that the AO had failed to establish any failure

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

21. Now there can be cases where at the time when the search is initiated or requisition is made, the assessment or reassessment proceedings relating to any assessment year falling within the period of the six assessment years mentioned above, may be pending. In such a case, the second proviso to sub section (1) of Section 153A says that such

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

21. Now there can be cases where at the time when the search is initiated or requisition is made, the assessment or reassessment proceedings relating to any assessment year falling within the period of the six assessment years mentioned above, may be pending. In such a case, the second proviso to sub section (1) of Section 153A says that such

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

21. Now there can be cases where at the time when the search is initiated or requisition is made, the assessment or reassessment proceedings relating to any assessment year falling within the period of the six assessment years mentioned above, may be pending. In such a case, the second proviso to sub section (1) of Section 153A says that such

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

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

section 147, the AO had to\nestablish failure on the part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material fact\nnecessary for assessment which is a pre-requisite for issue of notice u/s 148\n15\nITA No. 872 & others/JP/2024\nKedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur\nbeyond 4 years. In the instant case, I find that

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

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

section 147, the AO had to\nestablish failure on the part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material fact\nnecessary for assessment which is a pre-requisite for issue of notice u/s 148\n\n14\nITA No. 872 & others/JP/2024\nKedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur\nbeyond 4 years. In the instant case, I find that

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

section 147, the AO had to\nestablish failure on the part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material fact\nnecessary for assessment which is a pre-requisite for issue of notice u/s 148\nbeyond 4 years. In the instant case, I find that the AO had failed to establish any\nfailure on the part of appellant to disclose

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 147 has been done without linking information received\nfrom Investigation Wing of the Department to actual facts in the appellant's case.\nTherefore, it is observed that the reasons recorded are vague and suffer from\ninfirmities mentioned. We also note that even after verifying that the information\navailable with him based on which notice u/s 148 had been issued

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)

reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022.” On perusal of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal, in order to determine the validity of notice issued u/s

SAVITA GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO, DELHI

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Reassessment without supplying reasons/ approval or material relied upon is invalid: 1. Without prejudicial to anything stated above and without any admission, it is to be noted that in the present case, the appellant was not provided with the copy of the reasons recorded/approvaland material relied upon for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 21 Savita Gupta

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 147 for carrying out the present reassessment proceedings. 30. In this regard, we refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In the reasons so recorded, the Assessing Officer refers to the information received from the office of DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur pursuant to search and seizure action

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 147 for carrying out the present reassessment proceedings. 30. In this regard, we refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In the reasons so recorded, the Assessing Officer refers to the information received from the office of DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur pursuant to search and seizure action

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

21 CTR 83 (All.). The expression ‘reason to believe’ occurring in section 147 does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the ITO, the reasons for the belief must have a rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of the belief [ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC)]. 1.2.4 Heart

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

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

u/s 147 has no legal basis and\nresultant reassessment proceedings deserve to be set aside. Our viewis fortified by\nthe decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Meenakshi Overseas Pvt.\nLtd. (supra) wherein it was held as under:-\n19. A perusal of the reasons as recorded by the AO reveals that there are three\nparts

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