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)

reassess the income of the assessee is based on the seized material and statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act for which the specific remedy is provided u/s 153C of the Act. For ready reference we quote section 153C as under:- “ 153C. 79[(1)] 80[Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147

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)

u/s 147 r.w.s 148? Ground No. 1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in quashing the reopening and reassessment under Section 147 of the Act ignoring that the case was reopened as per clause (c) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 and with the Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year is\ninvalid as per section 147.\nSince, as per the humble submissions of the appellant under ground no.1, there isn't any\nnon-disclosure on the part of the assessee, therefore, as per proviso to section 147, the\nreassessment proceedings are invalid and not as per law. The section 147

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

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

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act ignoring that the\nreason to belief of the AO is founded on information which has been received by\nthe AO after completion of assessment, which is a sound foundation for\nexercising power u/s 147 r.w.s 148?\n2.3 In ITA No. 874/JP/2024 the revenue has raised the following grounds;\n1 Whether on the facts

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

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

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act ignoring that the\nreason to belief of the AO is founded on information which has been received by\nthe AO after completion of assessment, which is a sound foundation for\nexercising power u/s 147 r.w.s 148?\n\n2.3 In ITA No. 874/JP/2024 the revenue has raised the following grounds;\n\n1 Whether

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

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act ignoring that the\nreason to belief of the AO is founded on information which has been received by\nthe AO after completion of assessment, which is a sound foundation for\nexercising power u/s 147 r.w.s 148?\n2.3 In ITA No. 874/JP/2024 the revenue has raised the following grounds;\n1 Whether on the facts

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 147 instead of section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction.” ITA Nos. 1190 & 1298/JP/2019 & 66/JP/2020 3 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 147 instead of section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction.” ITA Nos. 1190 & 1298/JP/2019 & 66/JP/2020 3 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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)

sections of 153C of the Act and therefore consequential order passed u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 1.4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in reopening the assessment, beyond the specified time line. Thus, the reassessment proceedings initiated is time barred and entire

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

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 , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, A person other than

DCIT, CC-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S. DANGAYACH HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

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

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

4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to\nDirect Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening could be done under above two conditions and\nfulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back\nassessment, but in section 147

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

4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to\nDirect Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening could be done under above two conditions and\nfulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back\nassessment, but in section 147

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

4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to\nDirect Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening could be done under above two conditions and\nfulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back\nassessment, but in section 147

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

4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to\nDirect Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening could be done under above two conditions and\nfulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back\nassessment, but in section 147

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

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