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

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

21(d) of the audit report. (PB pg. no. 113)\nThus the following documents clear the position of payments being made on different dates,\nnot in contravention of the provisions of section 40A(3):\na.\nAudit report of the tax-auditor,\nb. Affidavits of the suppliers in support of invoices raised and payments being made,\nc. Affidavit of the accountant

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

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr. Manchanda, learned counsel\nfor the appellant, took us through several sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since

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

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

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 on various judicial decisions that the AO cannot reopen concluded\nassessment merely to re-examine any transaction for non-application of his mind on the\nmaterials already with him.\n\n5.13 The Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

u/s 143(3) of the Act. It\nhas been settled by various courts that when no addition is made in respect to the reason\nfor which the satisfaction is reached in the reasons recorded before issue of notice u/s 148\nof the Act, then the Ld. AO had no jurisdiction to make any other addition i.e. to go beyond\nthe

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)

5. along with affidavit Copy of Issue Letter issued u/s 148A(b) dated 27.06.2022 along with 43-47 Information Passing letter regarding search proceeding in case of Ajay 6. Gangwal and issue wise reply in matter of Ajay Gangwal 48-49 Copy of Reply dated 04.07.2022 to issue letter issued u/s 148A(b) 7. 50-53 Copy of Order issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued........” Hence, the there was relevant and cogent material before the Ld. A.O before re- opening the assessement. The contention of the appellant in this regard is rejected. In view

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

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

147 and thus, the notice issued under section 148 and consequent reassessment proceedings are quashed and set-aside. 19. Now, we refer to the appeal filed by the Revenue wherein the findings of the ld CIT(A) have been challenged. 20. In this regard, the ld DR relied on the findings of the AO and our reference was drawn

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5 (Del), Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Del) and Pr. CIT vs. G & G Pharma Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del). Further, reliance was placed on the Co-ordinate Benches decisions in case of Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 65 ITR (Trib.) 663 (Agra), Unique Metal Inds. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 1372/Del/2015

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5 (Del), Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Del) and Pr. CIT vs. G & G Pharma Ltd. (2016) 384 ITR 147 (Del). Further, reliance was placed on the Co-ordinate Benches decisions in case of Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 65 ITR (Trib.) 663 (Agra), Unique Metal Inds. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 1372/Del/2015

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

21. The third and last part contains the\nconclusion drawn by the AO that in view of these facts, \"the alleged transaction is\nnot the bonafide one. Therefore, I have reason to be believe that an income of Rs.\n5,00,000 has escaped assessment in the AY 2004-05 due to the failure on the part\nof the Assessee

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

u/s 153A is an important document. The revised return was not furnished within the time allowed by the AO The section 153A read as under “153A. ((1)) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person 5 Ajay Bakliwal vs. ACIT where a search is initiated

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

21. The third and last part contains the\nconclusion drawn by the AO that in view of these facts, \"the alleged transaction is\nnot the bonafide one. Therefore, I have reason to be believe that an income of Rs.\n5,00,000 has escaped assessment in the AY 2004-05 due to the failure on the part\nof the Assessee

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

21. The third and last part contains the\nconclusion drawn by the AO that in view of these facts, \"the alleged transaction is\nnot the bonafide one. Therefore, I have reason to be believe that an income of Rs.\n5,00,000 has escaped assessment in the AY 2004-05 due to the failure on the part\nof the Assessee

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

21. The third and last part contains the\nconclusion drawn by the AO that in view of these facts, \"the alleged transaction is\nnot the bonafide one. Therefore, I have reason to be believe that an income of Rs.\n5,00,000 has escaped assessment in the AY 2004-05 due to the failure on the part\nof 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

u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act deserves to be quashed. The A.O. had no jurisdiction to travel beyond the reasons for reopening the assessment. This contention of assessee is based on well settled law and a few judgments in support, including binding judgments of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court, are as under