SANGEETA GOEL L/H SURENDRA PRAKASH JAIN,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2009-10

reassessment proceedings have been initiated after the death of the assessee. Though it was pointed out by the heir of the deceased assessee that the assessee has expired long back and, therefore, the notice issued in her name and/or against a dead person is not valid, instead of taking corrective measures as provided under section 292B

VANMALIBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL L/H RANJANBEN DEEPAKBHAI PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 5, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.345/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Vanmalibhai Muljibhai Patel, Vs. Ito, L/H Of Ranjanben Deepakbhai Patel Ward - 5, 16, Shrinikunj Society, Ashabaug, Navsari Navsari - 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abjpp3114G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

section 292B and to issue fresh notice against the legal heir of the deceased, the AO had continued with the reassessment

TIRATHRAJ RAJMURAT MAURYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

section 147. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC) has categorically held that valid service of notice u/s 148 is a sine qua non for reassessment; absence thereof goes to the root of jurisdiction and renders the reassessment proceedings void. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. Chetan Gupta

TIRATHRAJ RAJMURAT MAURYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

section 147. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC) has categorically held that valid service of notice u/s 148 is a sine qua non for reassessment; absence thereof goes to the root of jurisdiction and renders the reassessment proceedings void. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. Chetan Gupta

TIRATHRAJ RAJMURAT MAURYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

section 147. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC) has categorically held that valid service of notice u/s 148 is a sine qua non for reassessment; absence thereof goes to the root of jurisdiction and renders the reassessment proceedings void. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. Chetan Gupta

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

292B of the Act against assessee in\nrespect of pages 73 and 75 of A-23 as they were not seized from his premises\nduring the search proceedings. No paper was found or seized from his premises\nwith regard to unaccounted payment for plot No. 224. Further, he contended\nthat the document relied on by AO is a dumb document

NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT

292B of the Act against assessee in\nrespect of pages 73 and 75 of A-23 as they were not seized from his premises\nduring the search proceedings. No paper was found or seized from his premises\nwith regard to unaccounted payment for plot No. 224. Further, he contended\nthat the document relied on by AO is a dumb document

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

292B of the Act against assessee in\nrespect of pages 73 and 75 of A-23 as they were not seized from his premises\nduring the search proceedings. No paper was found or seized from his premises\nwith regard to unaccounted payment for plot No. 224. Further, he contended\nthat the document relied on by AO is a dumb document