PREETI SINGHVI L/H SHRI AJAY SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

147 may not appear to be factually correct. The Assessing Officer has not applied his mind in issuance of notice u/s 148 and whatever, objected by the audit, added/disallowed. Therefore, reopening of assessment u/s 148/147 is illegal. 6.4.2 As per reassessment

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 was held to be not valid in law. Further, it is to contend that that the reopening of assessment is bad in law for the reasons: a) That the information on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had initiated proceedings U/s 147

HEERA LAL KASARA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

assessment order dated 19.07.2011. Later on, the AO initiated the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the IT Act after recording reasons duly approved by the PCIT vide his letter no. 3822 dated 22.03.2016 and accordingly issued notice u/s 148 of the IT Act on 22.03.2016 which was duly 13 Heera Lal Kasara, Udaipur. served on the assessee. In response

DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148 on basis of information furnished by Directorate of Investigation Unit and CIT gave approval without applying his mind in slip-shod manner—As approval/sanction given by CIT was without recording satisfaction, reopening was not sustainable—Assessee’s appeal allowed. TARA ALLOYS LTD. vs. ITO (2018) 63 ITR (Trib) 0484 (Delhi) Reassessment—Income escaping assessment

PARASMAL SAREMAL GOGAD,PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reopened u/s 147 of the Act and the assessment\nproceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B had been completed on 31.3.2022 at the\nassessed income of Rs. 4,61,700/-d accepting the returned income.\nFurther, it is found that the assessee has invested in purchase of plots in\nAdeshwar Nagar Developed by Sh. Mahendra Kankaria. The details of\npayment made

PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainsh. Prakash Chandra Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer 67-68, Hiran Magri, Sector Ward 1(1), Udaipur No. 08, Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavpj 3696 E

reassessment proceeding. The reasons for reopening of assessment recorded by the AO are extracted below:- “Assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act has been completed on 31/01/2013 in the case of Kumari Garima Jain and addition of 7 Prakash Chandra Jain Udaipur vs. ITO, Udaipur Rs.16,00,000/- has been made as unexplained cash deposit in bank account

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

147 is assessment for purpose of reopening of the assessments. In\nthe case of the assessee no assessment was made before issue of notice u/s 148,\ntherefore there cannot be any reassessment

M.P. POONIA,JODHPUR vs. ITO, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 is assessment for purpose of reopening of the assessments. In the case of the assessee no assessment was made before issue of notice u/s 148, therefore there cannot be any reassessment

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

u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act that ‘if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assessee or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which is escaped the assessment and which

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

u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act that ‘if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assessee or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which is escaped the assessment and which

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

u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act that ‘if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assessee or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which is escaped the assessment and which

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

u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act that ‘if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assessee or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which is escaped the assessment and which

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

u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act that ‘if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assessee or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which is escaped the assessment and which

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

u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act that ‘if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assessee or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which is escaped the assessment and which

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

reopened, however, no incriminating\ndocuments whatsoever, were recovered from the assessee for the year under\nconsideration. Therefore, being an unabated assessment, the original assessment\ncannot be disturbed. The AO made the addition treating the long term capital gain\nas undisclosed income merely on the basis of information received from\nInvestigation Wing, Kolkata. The addition so made is neither based

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

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 143(3) of the IT Act. Notice under section 148 was issued on 25/03/2015 requiring the assessee to file

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reopening the assessment do not make out a case that the assessee was engaged in some business and has not been filed return of income. Therefore, the cash deposit in the bank account could not be basis for holding the view that income has escaped assessment. The assessee may have deposited the cash out of his sale of capital asset

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reopening the assessment do not make out a case that the assessee was engaged in some business and has not been filed return of income. Therefore, the cash deposit in the bank account could not be basis for holding the view that income has escaped assessment. The assessee may have deposited the cash out of his sale of capital asset