RITESH SHANTILAL VARU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट । In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No. 483/RJT/2026 �नधा�रण वष�/ Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ritesh Shantilal Varu, The Income Tax Officer, Hari Krupa 10 Gayatri Nagar, Vs. ITO WD 3(1)(1), RKT Gayatri Nagar Main Road, Rajkot, New Aayakar Bhawan, Near Gujarat-360002 Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat 360001 PAN No. APWPV5424N (अपीलाथ�/assessee) (��यथ�/Respondent) :

�नधा�रतीक�ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. AR राज�वक�ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईक�तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 16/06/2026 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/09/2026 ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 08.10.2025 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 10.03.2025 relevant to the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds of the appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The Approval u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31/03/2024 (DIN: ITBA/AST/S/118/2023-24/1063773683(1)) purportedly granted by Shri Alok Singh, PCIT, Rajkot-1 is unsigned. In the absence of a valid approval u/s 151 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 and consequential reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. 2. The appellant, in the facts and circumstances of the case deserves a fresh opportunity to present his case, before the Id. AO.

3. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as in facts in treating Rs.20,10,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE. 3. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee’s case was reopened after following due process, as the assessee had made cash transaction for property in project named, Project "RK Prime" developed by M/s Naresh Organisers Pvt Ltd. The notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 31.03.2024, was issued. Direction u/s 144A has been obtained from the Addl. CIT range 2(1), Rajkot. Thereafter, notice u/s.143(2) and notices u/s. 142(1) were also issued calling relevant details, which are available in e-filing portal. All the above notices were served on Email ID dhavalkhakhar261@gmail.com. The assessment was finalized after considering the details filed by the assessee. The assessing officer noticed that documents i.e. Miracle software Ledger and payment by bank/cheque mentioned in the registered deed for the unit no. 509 of R K Prime Commercial building matches exactly. Therefore, the sanctity of the documents is proved that the cheque and cash transaction is done and very much clear as both transaction reflected in the seized ledger is completed. As per the seized ledger, during the year under consideration, assessee had paid cash “on money” of Rs.20,10,000/-. The assessee has failed to explain the sources of this cash “on money” payment, therefore, an amount of Rs.20,10,000/- was treated as Unexplained Investment u/s.69 to be taxed with provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed, the action of the assessing officer, observing as follows: “As noted from the facts of the case and material available on record, it is seen that the Assessing Officer made the impugned additions, based on materials available on record, after according proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant and after marshalling all the facts. The appellant neither produced any evidence in support of his claim nor complied with the various notices issued from time to time during the entire appellate proceedings. Hence, it is held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act, resulting in the assessed income amounting to Rs.

Page 2 of 6

24,23,990/-, based on his findings and proper adjudication, is quite in order and the same is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, Grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Learned Counsel for the assessee, vehemently argued that approval u/s 151 of the Act is not signed by the prescribed Income Tax Authority, therefore, assessing officer did not have power to frame the reassessment order by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, hence, the re-assessment proceedings may be quashed.

“8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record. We note that the approval of the PCIT is without any signature of the Ld.PCIT and without generating any DIN number which is reproduced below:

8.1. Therefore, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has stated that the approval u/s.151 of the Act dated 30/03/2020 is not signed by the Ld.PCIT and, hence, it is not considered as a valid approval/satisfaction and, thus, the notice u/s.148 of the Act issued on the basis of said approval is bad in law and without jurisdiction. For that, reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Vikas Gupta reported at (2022) 142 taxmann.com 253 (Allahabad HC). The relevant part of judgement is reproduced: 13. Thus, as per provision of section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an assessing officer gets jurisdiction to issue notice to an assessee under section 148 of the Act, 1961 after Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Income-tax is satisfied on the reason recorded by the assessing officer that it is a fit case for issuing such notice. The date and time of the approval granted digitally under section 151 of the Act and the date and time of the notice under section 148 of the Act, shows that the satisfaction was recorded by the PCTT digitally after the notice under section 148 was digitally signed. 29. In the present set of facts there was no valid satisfaction recorded by the by the Prescribed Authority under section 151 of the Act, 1961 when the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee under section 148 of the Act, 1961. At the time when the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner there was no valid satisfaction recorded by the Prescribed Authority ie. the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Subsequent to issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, the satisfaction under section 151 was digitally signed by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, the point of time when the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 148, he was having no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act, 1961.

Consequently the impugned notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act, 1961 were without jurisdiction. The questions no. (a) and (b) are answered accordingly. 8.2. Therefore, based on these facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order framed by the AO needs to be quashed as there was no approval u/s.151 of the Act for initiating the re-assessment proceedings by the Ld.PCIT, therefore, on this count the assessment order framed by the AO should be quashed.”

Order is pronounced in the open court on 07/09/2026. Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] लेखा सद�/Accountant Member //True Copy// राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 07/09/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to :  The assessee  The Respondent  CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, RAJKOT By order  Guard File /True copy/

//True Copy// Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 6 of 6