SMT. SAMPAT JAJOO,BUNDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1753/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2018-19)

Smt. Sampat Jajoo Vs. DCIT Kalani & Co LLP, Central Circle Chartered Accountants, 5th Kota Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:ABMPJ 4177 G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, CA Respondent by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, JCIT Date of Hearing 15.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 21.07.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, CIT(A), Udaipur 02(hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 23.09.2025under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1753/JPR/2025 Sampat Jajoo 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the validity of notice issued u/s 153C of IT Act, 1961 and the consequent order passed by the AO. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,18,000/- u/s 69 of IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged cash paid for purchase of flat in the project Royal Palm even when no evidence of any receipt indicating payment of such amount was found in search of Friends SPS Group, Kota and neither the copy of the statement of the concerned person of the group OR the opportunity to cross examine such person was provided. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition relying on the excel sheet containing details of 55 flats which was not found in search but subsequently got prepared from the searched person on 03.08.2019 while in the satisfaction note different amounts are mentioned and therefore making the addition relying on such excel sheet is unjustified and unwarranted. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition in the AY under consideration ignoring that sale deed of the flat was executed on 13.08.2021 which falls in AY 2022-23. 5. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 6. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee challenges the validity of the jurisdictional notice issued u/s 153C of the Act and as a consequence the validity of the assessment framed in the present case. One of the contentions raised was that the AO had assumed jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act without any application of mind at all. In this regard, he contended that the facts assumed by the AO, while recording his satisfaction to issue notice u/s 153C of the Act, were different from the facts recorded by him, while framing assessment in the case of the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act was initiated on the assessee on account of some incriminating material pertaining to the assessee being revealed on

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1753/JPR/2025 Sampat Jajoo account of search action carried out u/s 132 of the Act on 01.08.2019 in the case of Friends SPS Group Kota.The incriminating material allegedly revealed on - money to have been paid by the purchasers of flats from the said builder and the list of beneficiaries included the name of the assessee also. In this regard, he pointed out, the AO of the searched person recorded his satisfaction as required u/s 153C of the Act, and reproduced the list in his satisfaction note, of all the persons who were revealed in the search action to have made on-money payment in cash to the searched assessee on account of purchase of flat from him. 4. He contended that the assessee’s name was listed at serial No.14 of the list reproduced in the satisfaction note mentioning the assessee’s name i.e. Pramod Jajoo along with Sampat Jajoofor Flat No.B401 and stating the sale consideration as per agreement to be Rs.43,82,000/- while the actual sale consideration to be Rs.63,82,000/- and therefore, the cash payment /on money payment made being Rs.20 lakhs. He drew my attention to the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person placed before me at paper book page No.1 to 4 more particularly to page No.2 and 3, listing all the beneficiaries and mentioning the facts relating to the assessee as pointed out above at serial No.14 as under:- On the basis of the documents seized during the search and survey operation, the information related to payment of on-money in cash by the individual purchasers-are- those-who were not covered under search/survey but it is clear from documents that these individuals paid on money in cash from their undisclosed income. The details of such purchasers (indicated in bold letter of column No. 3/name of purchasers) with Flat No., Date of sale Agreement, Sales consideration as per agreement, actual consideration and difference amount are summarized as under:-

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1753/JPR/2025 Sampat Jajoo

P a g e | 5 ITA No.1753/JPR/2025 Sampat Jajoo 5. He thereafter pointed out, that the AO of the assessee, recorded his satisfaction for issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act recording the same facts vis a vis the assessee as recorded by the AO of the searched person, so as to assume jurisdiction to frame assessment on the assessee. The satisfaction note of the AO of the assessee was placed before me at paper book page No.14 and 15, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder:- In this case an information has been passed by the Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vide his letter No. DCIT/CC-Kota/2022-23/515 dated 17.01.2023 which contain information in respect of the above assesse Smt. Sampat Jajoo (PAN- ABMPJ4177G) In the said information it is informed that notice u/s 153C of the IT Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2020-21 are to be issued for the purpose of assessment and reassessment of income of the above assesse in accordance with provision of section 153A of the IT Act. Details of the said information of the above assesse are as under:-

P a g e | 6 ITA No.1753/JPR/2025 Sampat Jajoo money in cash from their undisclosed income. There are many pages/documents related to the purchasers, which establishes that the purchasers have paid actual deal amount, which is more than the agreement value of sale. Considering the documents seized during the search and Survey operation and reply submitted by the assessee during the post search proceeding, it is evident that the purchasers of the flats have paid cash amount and invested huge unaccounted cash in flats as on-money.

On the basis of the documents seized during the search and survey operation, the Information related to payment of on-money in cash by the individual purchasers are those were not covered under search/survey but it is clear from documents/details providedby the DCIT, Central Circle, Kota that assesse had paid on-money in cash from his undisclosed income. The details of the above purchaser, with Flat No., Date of sale Agreement, Sales consideration as per agreement, actual consideration and difference amount are summarized as under:

P a g e | 7 ITA No.1753/JPR/2025 Sampat Jajoo scanned copy of the list prepared from the incriminating documents found during search, and which mentioned the assessee at Serial No.19. He pointed out, therefrom, in this list the assessee’s name was singly mentioned and not along with Pramod Jajooas mentioned in the list reproduced in the satisfaction note for the AO of searched person. 7. He further pointed out, that in this list, the actual consideration was mentioned at Rs.57 lakhs as opposed to Rs.63,82,000/- mentioned both in the list reproduced in the satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person and also in the satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the assessee. 12.4 The assessee's contention that, no "on-money" payment of Rs. 13,18,000/- was made to the builder or any person by the assessee and no such agreement of Rs.57,00,000/- was ever been made by the assessee as alleged. In this connection, it is stated that during the search and seizure operation carried out in the case of Friends SPS Group Kota on 01.08.2019, various incriminating documents were found and seized which were related to the payment of on money in cash made against the purchase of flats in Project Royal Palm by individual purchasers. The scanned copy of same are annexed as under-

P a g e | 8 ITA No.1753/JPR/2025 Sampat Jajoo

P a g e | 9 ITA No.1753/JPR/2025 Sampat Jajoo

On perusal of aforesaid seized documents, it is noticed that the same is related to payment received through cheque and cash by the SPS and YashAkshay (Partners of Royal Palm Project) against the sale of various flats in Royal Palm Projects. The name of assessee Shri Sampat Jajoo is also reflecting at Sr. No. 19. On perusal of this incriminating document, it is clear that theassessee had made cash payment of Rs.13,18,000/- against the purchased of flat No. B-401 in Royal Palm Project during the year under consideration. Hence, it is clear that the case has been selected for scrutiny u/s 153C of the Act on the basis of incriminating documents found and seized during the search proceedings conducted in the case of M/s Friends SPS Group, hence the contents of the assessee that no any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 related to the assessee is not acceptable in this case. Therefore, the reply of the assessee that the cash payment of Rs. 13,18,000/- was not made against the purchase of flat is also not acceptable as same is evident from seized documents and assessee has not submitted any evidence which proves that above cash payment has not been made. Further during the course of assessment proceedings, on perusal of copy of registered sale deed, it is noticed that the assessee had purchased the aforesaid the aforesaid flat in her name for registered sale consideration of Rs.43,82,000/- & registry of the same has been made during the F.Y.2021-22 i.e. on 13.08.2021. However, the actual sale consideration was of Rs.57,00,000/-, as revealed form the seized documents. Hence, from the seized document, it is clear that theassessee had made payment of on money in cash amounting to Rs. 13,18,000/- (57,00,000/-minus 43,82,000/-) against purchase of flat No. B-401 in the project Royal Palm from her undisclosed source of income. 8. He further pointed out, that the difference on money, accordingly, was noted in the list reproduced in the assessment order to be Rs.13,18,000/- as opposed to Rs.20 lakhs reproduced in the satisfaction note as above. He further, pointed out that the AO had dealt with this issue of on money payment referred to this list reproduced in his assessment order and had made addition on account of on money paid by the assessee amounting to Rs.13,18,000/-.

P a g e | 10 ITA No.1753/JPR/2025 Sampat Jajoo 9. He contended therefore, that there was no clarity at all as to what actually was the list prepared by the Investigation Wing during search conducted on the Friends SPS Group. He pointed out that there were many discrepancies in the facts relating to the said list maintained in the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person, in the satisfaction note of the AO of the assessee and even in the assessment order. He pointed out, that while the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person reproduced the list of 50 persons, however, the satisfaction note of the AO of the assessee maintained the list to be of 55 persons. Thereafter, he pointed out, that while the AO of the searched person mentioned on money paid by the assessee of Rs.20 lakhs mentioning the name of another person along with the assessee to have purchased the flat and the AO of the assessee also recorded the said fact in his satisfaction note u/s 153C of the Act, however, in the assessment order, the AO reproduced a list in which only the assessee’s name is mentioned as owner of the flat and the amount of on money paid attributable to the assessee entirely is mentioned at Rs.13,18,000/- as opposed to Rs.20 lakhs mentioned in the other list. 10. He stated therefore, that there was a clear case of non-application of mind by the AO while issuing notice to the assessee, and assuming jurisdiction to frame assessment u/s 153C of the Act. 11. The Ld. DR before me, though vehemently objected to the contention made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, however she was unable to controvert the factual contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee as stated above, pointing out grave discrepancies in the

P a g e | 11 ITA No.1753/JPR/2025 Sampat Jajoo satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person, the AO of the assessee, both recorded u/s 153C of the Act, and the facts relating to the assessee noted in the assessment order. 12. In view of the above, I hold that it has been fairly demonstrated before me, that there was no application of mind by the AO, while assuming jurisdiction to frame assessment by issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, has fairly demonstrated before me, that the facts relating to the on money payment allegedly made by the assessee for the purchase of flat from the entities searched i.e. Friends SPS Group reproduced in his satisfaction note and also in the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person varied from the facts considered by the AO, while framing assessment u/s 153C of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has fairly demonstrated that, while the AO of the searched person and the AO of the assessee recorded the investigation to reveal the assessee to have purchased flat along with another person and to have paid on money of Rs.20 lakhs, the AO however, proceeded to frame assessment on the basis of different data revealed by the Investigation Wing disclosing the assessee to have made on money payment of Rs.13,18,000/-. It is not clear therefore, as to what was the correct data relating to the assessee, and therefore, I have no hesitation in concurring with the ld. Counsel for the assessee, that the AO in the facts of the present case has proceeded to assume jurisdiction without application of mind to the information available with him. The jurisdiction assumed therefore, is

P a g e | 12 ITA No.1753/JPR/2025 Sampat Jajoo without valid authority of law and the assessment order passed as a consequence therefore is quashed. 13. Since the assessment order has been quashed as above, the rest of the issues raised by the assessee are not being dealt with by me. The other legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment framed u/s 153C of the Act are kept open for the assessee to take up if required at a later stage in accordance with law. 14. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21.07.2026

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 21.07.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur