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)

9. The failure to adhere to the reasons recorded has rendered the assessment proceedings arbitrary and contrary to the statutory scheme. The procedural safeguards under sections 147 and 148 are not mere formalities but are substantive requirements to ensure fairness and prevent fishing and roving inquiries. In this case, the assessee was never put on notice about any suspicion regarding

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)

u/s 148 was not served by the AO who passed the order and consequential by the order of assessment lacks jurisdiction. Ld. DR has not disputed the primary facts Ld. AR has relied upon the decision of our Hon’ble High Court in Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta vs. ITO the case of Mrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs. CIT (2018) 166 DTR 1

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

The appeal stands allowed

u/s 148 was not served by the AO who passed the order and consequential by the order of assessment lacks jurisdiction. Ld. DR has not disputed the primary facts Ld. AR has relied upon the decision of our Hon'ble High Court in the case of Mrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs. CIT (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.) (HC) wherein it was held; 1

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

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.”

9) TMI 347 - ITAT MUMBAI], we are of the considered view that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 by obtaining prior approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad dated 27.07.2022 and consequential final assessment order dated 02.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act is illegal

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section u/s 147/148 of 1.T. Act, 1961 & reopened the case. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in upholding the action of Ld. A.O. for reopening of Assessment. 2 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR 2. That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred on Law and Facts in not accepting the order of Higher Authorities

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)

vi) Reassessment is opened solely on the basis of ledger found during search in the case of Shri Ajay Gangwal, without application of independent mind and without providing opportunity to cross examine. Detailed submission on above issues is made as under— Reassessment is time barred by Limitation At this juncture to determine whether assessee case is time barred by limitation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHRI RAJLAXMI DENIM, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

9 DCIT Vs. Shri Rajlaxmi Denim paragraph of its order that no material was found during the search is factually unsustainable since the entire case and arguments before the departmental authorities as well as the Tribunal had proceeded on the basis that the document embodying the transaction with Mohini Sharma was recovered from the assessee. While summarizing the contentions

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

1. 1. The main source of receipts/income of the assessee is annual fees from its members, rent, interest and Misc. receipts. In the present case the ld. AO has issued the notice u/s 148 on dt. 28.02.2018(PB38)on the reasons (PB 39) that “During the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee has not filed any return of income.As

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

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

vi) These\ncompanies were found to be non-existent as per enquiry made by Inspector of Income Tax.\nFurther, during the course of analysis and examination of the bank statements of\npaper/shell companies of Banka Group, the entire scheme of arrangement regarding the\nwithdrawal of cash from various bank accounts of paper/shell companies of Shri Mukesh\nBanka was clearly established

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 28. The correctness of the claim of the Assessee for the purpose of Section 14A read with Rule

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

VI of the balance sheet transaction\npertaining to procurement of land worth Rs.1.26 crores is clearly stated [Para 9] Resultantly the\nvery foundation of the impugned notice, the reasons to believe and the order turning down\nobjections is non-existent. All the three proceedings are based sheerly on conjectures and\nsurmises. The Assessing Officer had no tangible evidence to initiate

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

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

vi) These companies\nwere found to be non-existent as per enquiry made by Inspector of Income Tax.\nFurther, during the course of analysis and examination of the bank statements of\npaper/shell companies of Banka Group, the entire scheme of arrangement regarding\nthe withdrawal of cash from various bank accounts of paper/shell\ncompanies of Shri Mukesh Banka was clearly established

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

vi) These companies\nwere found to be non-existent as per enquiry made by Inspector of Income Tax.\nFurther, during the course of analysis and examination of the bank statements of\npaper/shell companies of Banka Group, the entire scheme of arrangement regarding the\nwithdrawal of cash from various bank accounts of paper/shell companies of Shri Mukesh\nBanka was clearly established

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

vi) The head note in the case of CIT Vs Raj Kumar Arora [2014] 52 taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad) is as under: "Section 1534, read with section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Search and seizure - Assessment in case of (Scope of assessment) - Assessment year 2000- 01-Whether Assessing Officer has power to reassess returns of assessee not only

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

vi) The head note in the case of CIT Vs Raj Kumar Arora [2014] 52 taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad) is as under: "Section 1534, read with section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Search and seizure - Assessment in case of (Scope of assessment) - Assessment year 2000- 01-Whether Assessing Officer has power to reassess returns of assessee not only

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

vi) The head note in the case of CIT Vs Raj Kumar Arora [2014] 52 taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad) is as under: "Section 1534, read with section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Search and seizure - Assessment in case of (Scope of assessment) - Assessment year 2000- 01-Whether Assessing Officer has power to reassess returns of assessee not only

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding the regular provisions for assessment/ reassessment contained in the IT Act, where search is conducted under Section 132 or requisition is made under Section 132A on or after 31 / 5 / 2003 in the case of any person, the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish return

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

vi. Pr. CIT vs. N.C. CABLES LTD.(2017) 98 CCH 0018 Del HC 2. No Satisfaction or application of mind by the Pr. CIT: Further on perusal of the reason recorded and approval u/s 151 by the without competent authority it is clearly proved that they have not applied the mind on the reasons recorded they have only expressed