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 order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) is also illegal and void abinitio and is liable to be quashed. 41 Shri Vimal Chand Surana HUF 7. As regards the second objection of the assessee against the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 we find that undisputedly the notice u/s 148 issued on 25.03.2014 is after the expiry of 4

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)

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

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

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

4 years. In the instant case, I find that the AO had failed to establish any\nfailure on the part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material fact necessary\nfor assessment. It is seen that this fact was brought to the notice of the AO through\nobjections filed during the reassessment proceedings, the AO vide order dt.\n25.11.2019

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

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

4 years. In the instant case, I find that the AO had failed to establish any\nfailure on the part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material fact necessary\nfor assessment. It is seen that this fact was brought to the notice of the AO through\nobjections filed during the reassessment proceedings, the AO vide order dt.\n25.11.2019

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

4 years. In the instant case, I find that the AO had failed to establish any\nfailure on the part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material fact necessary\nfor assessment. It is seen that this fact was brought to the notice of the AO through\nobjections filed during the reassessment proceedings, the AO vide order dt.\n25.11.2019

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

41 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 65B(4) is not necessary if the original computer/laptop etc in which the data/information, relied upon, itself is produced and conditions under Sections 65B(2) and 65B(4) must be satisfied cumulatively. 59. It was further submitted that in case of K. Natwar Singh (ITA No. 3258,3290,4168/Del/2013) and Jagat

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

41 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 65B(4) is not necessary if the original computer/laptop etc in which the data/information, relied upon, itself is produced and conditions under Sections 65B(2) and 65B(4) must be satisfied cumulatively. 59. It was further submitted that in case of K. Natwar Singh (ITA No. 3258,3290,4168/Del/2013) and Jagat

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)

147 in the case of search on 3rd party." 40. In view of above discussion the notices issued under section 148 and the impugned orders are quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. 41. The first ground of challenge to initiation of proceedings under section 148 is being accepted

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, it is verifiable that no where name of assessee company is mentioned. In the details in column ‘From’ under the abbreviation ‘HMD’ is mentioned. The inference drawn by the A.O. on his own on the basis of alleged noting on the alleged seized papers under the head ‘HMD’ as Dangayach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. That in the reasons recorded itself

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 132 of the Income Tax act together. The documents related to dissolution of JV of both of them were found from the premises of both the persons. Both of them accepted that the transaction in question was not loan but an accommodation entry against the settlement of dispute. In fact, some of the amounts as per seized paper

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

41. If there is ambiguity in the main provision of the enactment, it can be clarified by Insertion of an Explanation to the said section of the Act. Same has been done in the present case. Section 147 of the Act was interpreted differently by different High Courts, ie whether the second part of the section was independent

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

41) held: “If in the course of proceedings under section 147, the Assessing Officer were to come to conclusion that any income chargeable to tax which, according to his "reason to believe", had escaped assessment for any assessment year, did not escape assessment, then the mere fact, that the Assessing Officer entertained a reason to believe, albeit even a genuine

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

41,93,500/- and claimed exempt u/s.\n10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as bogus and treating this amount of\nlong term capital gain of Rs.1,37,83,051/- on sale of above mentioned\nshares as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. This is most arbitrary, unjust,\nuntenable and bad in fact

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

reassessment under Section 147, 148 & 148A of the Act in a faceless manner. Proceedings under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Act would now have to be taken as per the 34 ITA No. 656/JP/2023 & CO No. 06/JP/2023 ITO vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni procedure legislated by the Parliament in respect of reopening/ re-assessment i.e., proceedings under Section 148A

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

147 read with section 144B and (ii) notice issued 36 Late Shri Jitendra Nagar through L/R Smt. Deepika Nagar, Baran. u/s 148 by the ld. Assessing officer is without proper approval and satisfaction of higher authority u/s 151 of the Act and entire proceeding is void-ab-initio. Both these grounds are inter-related, inter-connected, therefore, these grounds

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

41,611/- which was offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income more than the computation of interest in the statement of affairs. The AO has made addition in respect of assessment years 2012-13 to 14-15 on account of less interest shown in the return of income in comparison to the statement of affairs whereas

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

41,611/- which was offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income more than the computation of interest in the statement of affairs. The AO has made addition in respect of assessment years 2012-13 to 14-15 on account of less interest shown in the return of income in comparison to the statement of affairs whereas