CHANCHAL KUMARI JAIN ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.213/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Chanchal Kumari Jain Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 143-A/A, Shastri Nagar Ward-3, Bhilwara Vs. Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311 001. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adnpj-8347-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 30/10/2017. The reassessment proceedings were triggered pursuant to receipt of certain information that the assessee procured bogus short-term capital gain

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain. 4. Now, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The first ground of appeal before us is a legal ground relates to passing the order under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 without appreciating true and correct facts of the case and documentary evidences brought on record

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

capital gains. Subsequently, the assessee was served with notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act dated 25/03/2015 the assessment was completed under section 148/143(3) vide order dated 09/12/2015. LEGAL POINTS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE GROUND NO. 1 & 2 -VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS That the assessment was completed under section

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings an invalid........” iv] On the identical facts the Hon’ble ITAT Agar Bench in the case of Shri. Raj Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) ITA No. 408/Agra/2018 Date of Order : 22/03/2019 "29. The text of the reasons recorded do proves that virtually there has been no application of mind by the learned Assessing officer so as to form

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings an invalid........” iv] On the identical facts the Hon’ble ITAT Agar Bench in the case of Shri. Raj Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) ITA No. 408/Agra/2018 Date of Order : 22/03/2019 "29. The text of the reasons recorded do proves that virtually there has been no application of mind by the learned Assessing officer so as to form

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

147, 148, 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

SHRI YASIN KHAN,CHURU vs. ITO,WARD-1, CHURU

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Though Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sh. Yasin Khan Income Tax Officerward-1 बनाम/ Ward No.25 Churu Churu, Rajasthan-331 001. Vs. Jaipur, Rajasthan-331 011. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Cakpk-2504-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act on 21/02/2016. The learned first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of condonation of delay of 715 days. 2 Sh. Yasin Khan Assessment Year: 2010-11 2.1 The relevant facts are that during assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee sold certain immoveable property Khasra No. 814 & 1642/806