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

Section 292B of the IT Act. 1.8.2 Also refer Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v/s ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom.) and 1.8.3 In the case of CIT V/s SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd 345 ITR 223(Del). Reassessment—Sanction for issue of notice u/s 151(1)—AO issued notice u/s 147

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

Section 292B of the IT Act. 1.8.2 Also refer Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v/s ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom.) and 1.8.3 In the case of CIT V/s SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd 345 ITR 223(Del). Reassessment—Sanction for issue of notice u/s 151(1)—AO issued notice 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)

u/s. 124 was not applicable as Assessee was filling his return of income with ITO at Chennai—ITAT held that Assessee was regularly filing his returns of income at Chennai and at time of issuance of notice under Section 148, ITO at Suratgarh had no jurisdiction over Assessee—Held, High Court found no error or illegality in observations

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)

u/s. 124 was not applicable as Assessee was filling his return of income with ITO at Chennai—ITAT held that Assessee was regularly filing his returns of income at Chennai and at time of issuance of notice under Section 148, ITO at Suratgarh had no jurisdiction over Assessee—Held, High Court found no error or illegality in observations

SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTPUTLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEHROR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. While Section 159(2)(a) of the Act talks of a proceeding already taken against an Assessee 'before his death'. Section 159(2)(b) of the Act envisages any proceeding which could have been taken against the 7 Sh. Shambhu Dayal, Kotputli Vs. ITO, Behror deceased if he had survived. It permits

ASHISH SHARMA,GOPAL PURA BYE - PASS JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 148 of the Act or not. 31 Ashish Sharma vs. ITO 8.1 It is thus, imperative to deal the provisions of Section 292B of the Act and the same is reiterated hereinbelow:- “292B. No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings were initiated but nothing was provided except the screen shot. The ld. AO (Faceless Assessment Unit) considered such alleged accommodation entry for Rs. 1.37 Crore as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and taxed the same in terms of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 1ST Appeal The assessment order so passed by assessment unit was appealed

SMT. LALITA RAWAT, 40, RAWAT PALACE, NEAR MURLI MANOHAR MANDIE, BAS PADANPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(5), JAIPUR, WARD-5(5), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Issuing The Notice. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate The Fact Of Re-Assessment Notice & Consequential Re-Assessment

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. While Section 159(2)(a) of the Act talks of a proceeding already taken against an Assessee 'before his death'. Section 159(2)(b) of the Act envisages any proceeding which could have been taken against the 6 Smt. Lalita Rawat, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur deceased if he had survived. It permits

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

292B cannot take care of any mistake in\r\nrecording the reasons because that section refers to \"return of income,\r\nassessment, notice, summons or other proceedings\"—It does not refer to the\r\nreasons recorded by the AO—Any invalid proceedings for assumption of\r\njurisdiction cannot be corrected by s.292B\r\n(i) In the case of Vikram

JAI DEEP SINGH,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 147, he is free to record the reasons for the belief and proceed to make the reassessment. Thus, the appellant’s arguments being devoid of merits are rejected and keeping in view the provisions of section 292B

PRADEEP KUMAR,JHUJHUNU vs. ITO WARD -2, JHUJHUNU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

292B (i) In the case of Vikram Singh vs. Income Tax Officer (2021) 63 CCH 0044 Lucknow Trib Reassessment—Escapement of income—Case of assessee was reopened u/s. 147 for deposits in bank amounting Rs.11,00,000—Held, Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 has held that sec. 147 has this

LATE SH. SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THROUGH L/H SMT. NIKITA DHARIWAL,DHARIWAL BHAWAN, SHASTRI MARKET, KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 292B—Writ petition was filed by assessee’s son—Held, in case of Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Income-tax Officer [(2019) 101 taxmann.com 362 (Gujarat)], it was observed that notice u/s 148 is jurisdictional notice, and existence of valid notice u/s 148 is condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction by AO to assess or reassess u/s 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

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act without appreciating true and correct facts of the case and documentary evidences brought on record by the assessee Our submissions:- At the outset, your humble appellant would like to bring your kind attention that notice issued u/s. 148 (PB Page 78)of the Act in our case was Time-barred and passed after

SUSHILA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

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

u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1901.\nvii. The appellant assessee in its submissions has stated that, “At the\noutset it is submitter that the Id AO reopened the proceedings on the\nground that the assessee has deposited a cash of Rs 17161997/ in its\nbank account which is clear from the copy of reasons recorded, a copy

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment cannot be passed without notice under section 143(2).\nJurisdictional error cannot be cured by section 292BB.\n\n1.12 CIT V/s Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del) Held\nAlso refer Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd. v ACIT (2017)390 ITR 167 (Ker)]\nFailure of AO to issue notice under section 143(2) prior of finalizing

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 by AO by issuing notice u/s 148 was without\nauthority of law and could not be sustained.\n2. No addition made on the reasons recorded u/s 148: As the ld. AO issued the\nnotice u/s 148 on the reasons recorded as per assessment order that “Information\nhas been received from the IT(Hq) his vide letter No.657 dated

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

292B cannot take care of any mistake in\nrecording the reasons because that section refers to \"return of income,\nassessment, notice, summons or other proceedings\"—It does not refer to the\nreasons recorded by the AO—Any invalid proceedings for assumption of\njurisdiction cannot be corrected by s.292B\n(i) In the case of Vikram Singh vs. Income Tax Officer

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

292B cannot take care of any mistake in\nrecording the reasons because that section refers to \"return of income,\nassessment, notice, summons or other proceedings\"—It does not refer to the\nreasons recorded by the AO—Any invalid proceedings for assumption of\njurisdiction cannot be corrected by s.292B\n(i) In the case of Vikram Singh vs. Income Tax Officer