DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

reassessment proceedings were invalid due to procedural defects and lack of proper documentation.", "held": "The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, the approval of the satisfaction note, the notice under section 148, and the procedures under sections 148A and 149(1)(b

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

sections": ["147", "148", "143(3)", "145(3)", "132", "133A", "131", "148A", "149", "149(1)(b)", "43CA", "153A", "153C", "151"], "issues": "The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

1)(b) were defective and not followed correctly. Specifically, there was a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer in not quoting the 'assessment year' and other crucial details, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 147", "Section 148", "Section 143(3)", "Section 145(3)", "Section 148A", "Section 149

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 149(1)(b) of\nthe Act, the total asset can be computed based on the cash on hand and based on\n\"on money” mentioned in the seized documents, however, assessing officer\nforgot to state in the notice, and for this small mistake committed by the\nassessing officer, the reassessment

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT., RAJKOT

Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "149

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 149(1)(b) of\nthe Act, the total asset can be computed based on the cash on hand and based on\n\"on money” mentioned in the seized documents, however, assessing officer\nforgot to state in the notice, and for this small mistake committed by the\nassessing officer, the reassessment

SHIV EXTRUSION,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 646/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Extrusion Vs. Income Tax Officer Plot No.3978 Phase Iiiroad Income Tax Office, Ito Ward No.-R Dared, Jamnagar 2(10), Jamnagar, Income 361004, Gujarat, India, Jamnagar Tax Office, Shiv Smruti, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, Gujarat, 361008, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkfs7199F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026

Section 149(1)(b)): The NFAC erred in sustaining the reassessment initiated under the extended period of limitation prescribed by Section

KISHAN BEEJ,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.384/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kishan Beej Ito, Wared-2(1) बनाम Kashivishvanath Road Jamnagar – 361 001 Nr. P & T Office Vs. Jamnagar – 361 001 Pan : Aacfk 2114 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

reassessment notices could be issued under the new regime if not more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Kishan Beej Vs. ITO 14 Para 50: Threshold limit u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act. Another important change under section

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

149 requires assessing officers to issue a notice of reassessment under Section 148 within the prescribed time limits. Further, Section 151 requires assessing officers to obtain sanction of the specified authority before issuing notice under Section 148. In Chhugamal Rajpal v. S P Chaliha, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that Section 151 must be strictly adhered

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

149 requires assessing officers to issue a notice of reassessment under Section 148 within the prescribed time limits. Further, Section 151 requires assessing officers to obtain sanction of the specified authority before issuing notice under Section 148. In Chhugamal Rajpal v. S P Chaliha, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that Section 151 must be strictly adhered

KANTILAL RANCHHODBHAI NAKUM,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.551/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kantilal Ranchhodbhai Nakum Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Plot No.762, Gidc, Phase-2, बनाम/ Jamnagar, Aaykar Bhawan, Nr. Dared, Jamnagar-361 004 Vs. Chamber Of Commerce Hall, Jamnagar- Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361 001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aflpn 8072 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Manek, Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Cit(A)”] Dated 29.07.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, On 12.05.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Reopening Of Assessment U/S 148 Of The Act.

Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, as it existed prior to 4 Kantilal R Nakum 01.04.2021, then notice u/s 148A(b) would be time barred by 31.03.2022. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashish Agarwal would not apply to the case of assessee as it would only apply to judgments and orders passed by different

NILESHKUMAR M BHALODI,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

149(1)(b) of the Act, as it existed prior to 01.04.2021, then notice u/s 148A(b) would be time barred by 31.03.2022. The Page 4 of 8 ITA No.7/Rjt/2026/AY 2015-16 Nileshkumar M. Bhalodi decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashish Agarwal would not apply to the case of assessee as it would only apply

SANJAYKUMAR HARIBHAI PARSANA,RAJKOT vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR 1(1), RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

149(1)(b) of the Act, as it existed prior to 01.04.2021, then notice u/s 148A(b) would be time barred by 31.03.2022. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashish Agarwal would not apply to the case of assessee as it would only apply to judgments and orders passed by different High Courts where similar notices

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

reassessment proceedings under Section 147, leading to additions and penalty proceedings. The assessee's appeals to the CIT(A) resulted in partial relief. Subsequently, the matter reached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2015-16 was time-barred and invalid as it was issued after the prescribed

MOHAN HARDASMAL TAHILYANI,GANDHIDHAM vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD 1 GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

1)(b) of the Act has to be fulfilled, that is, assessing officer has to be in\npossession of books of accounts or other documents or evidences, which revel\nthat the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has\nescaped assessment, amounts to or is likely to amount fifty lakh rupees or more\nfor that year

DILIP DAYABHAI DHORIYANI,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.401/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2017-18) Dilip Dayabhai Dhoriyani, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of Sairam Enterprise, Ceramic बनाम/ Ward-1, Morbi Plaza Shop No.0808 A National Income Tax Office, Morvi- 363 Vs. Highway, Trajpur, Morbi-363 642 642(Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं /. /. Pan/Gir No Asxpd1808J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M:

149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,- (a) if three years and three months have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); (b) if three years and three months, but not more than five years and three months, have elapsed from

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

149 of the Act with effect from 01.04.2021, three years would be over on 31.03.2019 which is prior to coming into force of TOLA and six years would be completed on 31.03.2022 which is after operation of TOLA. In such circumstances, notices for Assessment Year 2015-2016 are held to be invalid by Hon'ble Apex Court in case

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

149 of the Act with effect from 01.04.2021, three years would be over on 31.03.2019 which is prior to coming into force of TOLA and six years would be completed on 31.03.2022 which is after operation of TOLA. In such circumstances, notices for Assessment Year 2015-2016 are held to be invalid by Hon'ble Apex Court in case

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

149 of the Act with effect from 01.04.2021, three years would be over on 31.03.2019 which is prior to coming into force of TOLA and six years would be completed on 31.03.2022 which is after operation of TOLA. In such circumstances, notices for Assessment Year 2015-2016 are held to be invalid by Hon'ble Apex Court in case