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 proceeding was based\non ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The\nassessing officer without rejecting an objection for issuance of notice under section 148 to non-\nexistent assessee and not following the procedure u/s 189(3) of the Act, arbitrarily completed an\nassessment order on 24.12.2018 without impleading the legal representatives

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 proceeding was based\non ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The\nassessing officer without rejecting an objection for issuance of notice under section 148 to non-\nexistent assessee and not following the procedure u/s 189(3) of the Act, arbitrarily completed an\nassessment order on 24.12.2018 without impleading the legal representatives

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 proceeding was based\non ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The\nassessing officer without rejecting an objection for issuance of notice under section 148 to non-\nexistent assessee and not following the procedure u/s 189(3) of the Act, arbitrarily completed an\nassessment order on 24.12.2018 without impleading the legal representatives

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 proceeding was based\non ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The\nassessing officer without rejecting an objection for issuance of notice under section 148 to non-\nexistent assessee and not following the procedure u/s 189(3) of the Act, arbitrarily completed an\nassessment order on 24.12.2018 without impleading the legal representatives

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 proceedings and also therefore, cannot be subject matter of revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. The facts are not disputed that in this case, the Assessment Order passed u/s 147 / 143 dt. 12.12.2019 has been subjected to revision u/s 263 by the Ld. CIT. A Notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.03.2019 for A.Y. 2012- 13 under consideration

LALIT JOHARI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad40/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) Vs The Acit Shri Lalit Johri 65-A, Bank Colony, Rai Central Circle-2 Ka Bagh, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agfpj 5542 H

u/s 139(1) of the Act did not expire. The moment search was conducted, the provisions of Section 153A of the Act comes into action. Section 153A of the Act is reproduced as under:- ‘’Section 153A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 1549, section 151 and section 153 in the case of a person

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)

1)—AO issued notice u/s. 148 after recording reasons that income of assessee had escaped assessment—AO framed assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 by making addition—CIT(A) upheld order of AO—Held, in CIT Vs N.C. Cables 7 Dawoodi Bohra Jamat, Udaipur. Ltd., it was held that CIT(A) who was competent authority to authorize reassessment notice

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 proceeding U/s 147 of the Act without obtaining proper satisfaction and sanction from the superior authority U/s 151 of the Act. I have carefully considered the facts and submissions of the Learned AR and the decisions relied on by him. This is 3 SMT SHAHNAJ VS ITO, WARD-2, CHURU the case where originally the appellant had not filed

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

section 143(3), thereafter on the same facts, it was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 which was finalized, again notice u/s 148 is issued on the same facts and without any new material and finalized the reassessment which is for adjudication before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Now, this Hon’ble Tribunal is to decide the how prolong this

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

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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.”

148. Notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 along with questionnaire were issued on 07.06.2016 fixing the hearing on 13.06.2016. The assessee was also provided the reasons for reopening of assessment and copy of INS guidelines. In response to the notices under section 143(2) and 142(1), the assessee attended and submitted

PARASMAL SAREMAL GOGAD,PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 for invalid reasons by stating that there was\ninsufficient time available with the AO to pass the assessment order. The AR\nargued that the assessment proceedings were carried on for more than 1 year\nwhich cannot be called as insufficient time to complete the assessment\nproceedings and further the AO had sought all the documentary evidences\nwhich were necessary