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

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

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

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

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

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

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

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

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

9)\nDelhi High Court in CIT Vs. SPL's Siddhartha Limited, has while holding that when a particular\nauthority has been designated to record his/her satisfaction on any particular issue, then it is\nthat authority alone who should apply his/her independent mind to record his/her satisfaction\nand satisfaction so recorded should be 'independent' and not 'borrowed' or 'dictated'\nsatisfaction, rejected

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