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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent, and (b) The amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause(a) (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure

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)

147 and other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.” In view of above, notice issued u/s 148 without serving the notice and the consequential assessment order passed by non jurisdictional AO be quashed. Ground No.2 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.5,26,000/- u/s

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

reassessment proceedings is not in accordance with law as notices u/s 148A and 148 as well as order u/s 148A(d) have been passed by JAO instead of FAO, which 19 SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL VS DCIT,CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR is not in accordance with specific provisions of statue. Thus order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves

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)

69A. 6.The ld. AO further stated that It is also noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee, purchased mutual fund of Rs. 7,50,000/- but failed in furnishing documentary evidence substantiating the source of the same. Therefore, in absence to supporting documentary evidence, the said transactions remain unexplained and falls under the purview of unexplained investment u/s

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)

69A. 6.The ld. AO further stated that It is also noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee, purchased mutual fund of Rs. 7,50,000/- but failed in furnishing documentary evidence substantiating the source of the same. Therefore, in absence to supporting documentary evidence, the said transactions remain unexplained and falls under the purview of unexplained investment u/s

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of\nthe Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the\nso-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough\nback own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief of any\naccommodation entry. (Refer PCIT

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.”

69A of the Act for the year under consideration under section 147 read with section 144B of the IT Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) by sustaining the addition, confirmed the order of the AO. Now, the assessee is in appeal before

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment proceedings.\nReassessment proceedings as also subsequent recovery of tax are quashed and\nset aside.\nMrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs. CIT (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.) (HC)\nNotice under sec. 148 having been sent to an address where the assessee was\nnot residing, presumption of service cannot be drawn.\nCIT Vs. ITC Hotels (2015) 231 Taxman 57 (Kar.) (HC)\nWhen notice u/s

BHASKAR CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

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

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961 by making addition of Rs. 81,84,838/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 on account of unexplained money, vide his order dated 29.05.2023. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before

RAMDAS SINGH TOMAR,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ramdas Singh Tomar M/s Om Sai Construction, Harikand Ka Pura Faraspura, Dholpur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AMZPT4728R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rahul Pandya, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT सुनवा

147 of the Actafter obtaining prior approval of appropriate authority. The reasons for issue of that notice was that the assessee has made Cash Withdrawals (including through bearer cheque) in current account for an amount of Rs.1,10,52,000/-. He has also deposited cash of Rs.47,950/- in bank account maintained with Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank. Apart from

J.K.V. STONEX,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KISHANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings solely on the basis that the petitioner's balance sheet 4. Without prejudice of recorded an outstanding unsecured loan of above, even if the ld. AO 16 JKV STONEX VS ITO, WARD -1,KISHANGARH Our submission before Hon’ble Bench on Further remarks 15.07.2025 Rs. 5,00,000/-. This is apparent from a wants to reopen case

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 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize reassessment notice, had to apply his mind and form opinion—Mere appending of expression ‘approved’ says nothing—It was not as if CIT (A) had to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with noting put up—At same time, satisfaction had to be recorded of given case which could

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 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize reassessment notice, had to apply his mind and form opinion—Mere appending of expression ‘approved’ says nothing—It was not as if CIT (A) had to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with noting put up—At same time, satisfaction had to be recorded of given case which could

MALI RAM YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. ITO, BEHROR

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

69A, ignoring the vital fact that the case was reopened to bring to tax the cash deposited into his bank account by the assessee as his unexplained income and the AO had made the addition on account of unexplained cash deposited into bank.. • Submission on the grounds of appeal : Re : Gr. No. 1 & 2 The assumption of jurisdiction

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

147 and/or to revise the assessment order\nunder Section 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under\nthe different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power\nand jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment,\ntherefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions of the\nrelevant Sections noticed above. While doing