KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment shall not be made until there\nhas been service of notice. Mere mentioned name of assessee on the notice cannot\nbe equated with the proper service of notice as contemplated under the provisions\nof the Act. The burden to establish that notice under section 149

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment shall not be made until there\nhas been service of notice. Mere mentioned name of assessee on the notice cannot\nbe equated with the proper service of notice as contemplated under the provisions\nof the Act. The burden to establish that notice under section 149

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment shall not be made until there\nhas been service of notice. Mere mentioned name of assessee on the notice cannot\nbe equated with the proper service of notice as contemplated under the provisions\nof the Act. The burden to establish that notice under section 149

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment shall not be made until there\nhas been service of notice. Mere mentioned name of assessee on the notice cannot\nbe equated with the proper service of notice as contemplated under the provisions\nof the Act. The burden to establish that notice under section 149

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person\nwhere a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other\ndocuments or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st\nday of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall—\n(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

reassessment order can be revised under s. 263 of the IT Act. On this ground itself the proceedings under s. 263 of the IT Act are bad in law and liable to be quashed. We accordingly, set aside the order of learned Principal CIT passed under s. 263 of the IT Act and quash the same

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the\nmandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.\n10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under

PRAKASH JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleprakash Jain Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Rajendra Jain, Advocate Tax, Circle-2 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th Udaipur B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Acepj 5236 H Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Smt. Runi Pal – Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The“Nfac/Cit(A)”] Dated 29/08/2025 With Respect To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Id. Counsel For The Assessee Vehemently Submitted That The Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Covered By The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Union Of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal 167 Taxmann.Com 70. The Ar Briefly Narrated The Facts Of The Case That Notice U/S 148 Of The Income-Tax Act

reassessment as explained by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 167 taxmann.com 70. The Ld. AR argued that fresh notice u/s 148 of 3 Asst. Year: 2017-18 the Act could have been issued only with the prior approval of the specified competent authority as per section 151 of the Act which in the present case

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 132 (4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making the assessment only if such statement is made in context with other evidence, or material discovered during search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable to any incriminating document or material found during search and seizure operation cannot, by itself, trigger the assessment

SHRI GOPAL SONI ,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BIKANER

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Gopal Soni Prop Vs. The Acit, Circle – 1 Durga Silver Home Bikaner. Katla Chowk Nokha Rajasthan. Bikaner-334803, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aemps5097M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bikaner Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

reassess the income u/s 154. The said mistake is not of record That was a debatable matter so no order this section should be made. The power conferred by provisions of Sec. 154/155 is a power to correct mistakes and not a power of review U/S 154, an A.O. cannot be permitted to revise or review his earlier order, there

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961 in the case of the assessee. 37. The Ld. AR further

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Reassessment—Validity—Grounds alleged in notice under s. 148 incorrect or non existent—ITO's jurisdictions is ousted the moment this situation comes to his knowledge. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180ITR 319 (P&H). On the basis of the aforesaid legal precedents it is clear that simply mentioning certain facts without application of mind

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassessment or reopening of the assessment. The\ncase is squarely covered by the above judgment. Therefore, to complete\nassessment on the basis of illegal notice is illegal and void.\nOn the similar principals, the order of the Karnataka High Court in the case of\nManjunath Cotton Corp and M/s. SSSA Emerald Meadows, on the issue of\npenalty