AMAR JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत �यायपीठ, सूरत । In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Surat Bench, Surat Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 563/SRT/2025 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2013-14) Amar Jewellers Private Limited, DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), 67-69, Mira Nagar Society, Opp. Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Samaj Bhawan, Varachha Road, Surat, Gujarat 395001. Surat, Gujarat 395006. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCA9180A (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by : Shri Mukesh Jain, Ld. CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 27/04/2026 : 06/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2013- 14, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, dated 25.03.2025, which in turn arises out of rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act, on 09.10.2023.

ITA No.563/Srt/2025 Amar Jeweller Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of jurisdictional assessing officer in rejecting the application u/s 154 of the assessee for cancellation of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 153A without taking prior approval from the Joint Commissioner as required by section 153D of the Act 2. It is therefore prayed that the assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 153A may be quashed and/or the above additions made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.

Page 2 of 13

ITA No.563/Srt/2025 Amar Jeweller Pvt Ltd v. DCIT found that M/s. Ekdant Commercial Pvt Ltd is a bogus/paper concern utilized for providing accommodation entries. Third information in this case is in the enquiry of M/s Bharat Bhagvandas Soni HUF whereby the assessee has obtained accommodation entries amounting to Rs.9,39,17,800/- through paper concerns operated by Sh. Bharat Kumar Soni and his family. Fourth information in this case is received from Investigation wing, Unit-4(1) Mumbai wherein it is reported that there are numerous persons pertaining to huge cash deposits in their bank accounts held with M/s Shri Renukamata Multi State Cooperative Urban Credit Society Ltd and thereafter transferred to the beneficiaries accounts. As per the information received, the assessee is one of the beneficiaries and has been identified to have credited of Rs. 9,42,98,840/-, in the its bank account No. 47010200026433 (IFSC UTIB0000047) held with Axis Bank Ltd from M/s Shri Renukamata Multi State Cooperative Urban Credit Society Ltd. Accordingly, the case of the assessee is re- opened u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (herein after referred as Act) after getting the necessary approval from the competent authority. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 28.03.2019. The notice u/s 148 of the Act was duly served upon the assessee on 30.03.2019. In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, assessee e-filed its ITR for A.Y. 2013-14 vide Ack. No. 464160031160419 dated- 16.04.2019/-. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 14.08.2019. The assessee, vide its letter dated 20/08/2019, filed objections against the reasons recorded and reassessment proceedings. The objections were duly disposed of vide letter No. ITBA/AST/F/17/2019-20/1017953950(1) dated 13/09/2019. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 25/09/2019. In response to the letter, the assessee replied on 04/10/2019 and 25/10/2019. The assessee has filed a writ petition before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide SCA no. 17598 of 2019. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide interim order dated 10/10/2019 has stayed further proceedings in this case. Later, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide its final Page 3 of 13

ITA No.563/Srt/2025 Amar Jeweller Pvt Ltd v. DCIT order in Special Civil Application No.17598 of 2019 dated 29/04/2022 has rejected the application filed by the assessee with following observations:

"17. It appears that in the case on hand, the search assessment was finalized under section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 28.03.2016. Thereafter, survey action under section 133A of the Act was conducted by the Investigating Wing, Mumbai on 14.01.2017 in the case of Shri Bijal Ashok Shah, proprietor of M/s. Swastik Corporation. During the course of the survey action, one statement of Bijal Ashok Shah was recorded on oath wherein he admitted that he is engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries to the beneficiaries in lieu of commission. Bijal Ashok Shah also disclosed the modus operandi employed by him to provide the entries to the beneficiaries. Bijal Ashok Shah, in his statement, has also named the writ applicant herein as one of the recipients of the accommodation entire. All these facts were not before the Assessing Officer at the time of finalization of the search assessment. It is a settled position of law that the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Assessing Officer fall outside the review powers and remains within the domain of the Assessing Officer at this stage of the proceedings where only a preliminary finding under section 147/148 has been made. It is necessary to reiterate that we are at the stage of the validity of the notice under section 148/147. The inquiry at this stage is only to see whether there are reasonable grounds for the Income Tax Officer to believe and not whether the omission/failure and the escapement of income is established, It is necessary to keep this distinction in mind. (See Shri Krishna (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (1996) 221 ITR 538/87 Taxman 315). Having regard to the materials on record it cannot be said that there is a total non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. It also cannot be said that his conclusion was merely based on the observations and information received from the Investigation Wing. The Assessing Officer could be said to have applied his mind to the same. The Assessing Officer could not be said to have merely concluded without verifying the facts that it is the case of reopening of the assessment. We do not find merit in the vociferous submission of the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant that the contents of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for the reopening of the assessment is merely an introduction about the investigations conducted by the Investigation Wing, the modus operandi of the entry provided, the summing up of inquiry of the Investigation Wing, the Information received from the Investigation Wing etc. We have examined the belief of the Assessing Officer to a limited extent to look into whether there was sufficient material available on record for the Assessing Officer to form a reasonable belief and whether there was a live link existing of the material and the income chargeable to tax that escaped assessment. The case on hand is not one where it could be argued that the Assessing Officer, on absolutely vague or unspecific information, initiated the proceedings of reassessment without taking the pains to form his own belief in respect of such materials. In the result, this application fails and is hereby rejected."

Page 4 of 13

ITA No.563/Srt/2025 Amar Jeweller Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 4. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on 07/06/2022 and 09/06/2022 are issued by the Jassessing officer(Jurisdictional Assessing Officer). However, the assessee has neither sought adjournment nor filed any reply. In the case of non- compliance, show cause notice dated16.06.2022 for proposed addition is issued DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/147(SCN)/2022- 23/1043465478(1) fixing the case for hearing on 20.06.2022. On the fixed date of hearing the assessee has requested for adjournment for 15 days. On 02.07.2022, a letter vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/17/2022-23/1043713232(1) in continuation to the show cause notice is issued for proposed additions by the Jassessing officer (Jurisdictional Assessing Officer). Thereafter, on 04.07.2022 the case is assigned to this Assessment Unit by NaFAC. On 05.07.2022, the assessee has filed written submission dated 05.07.2022 along with the copy of invoices issued in the name of the parties with whom bogus/suspicious transactions are reported to be made by the assessee. The assessee vide submission dated 05.07.2022, filed reply before the assessing officer, which is reproduced by the assessing officer in the assessment order.

ITA No.563/Srt/2025 Amar Jeweller Pvt Ltd v. DCIT and physical verification were not properly done. Further, on examination under oath, many of the purported Account holders denied having opened these Accounts and expressed ignorance of the financial transaction carried on therein. As per report, as a result of the action and in view of the various seized/impounded documents and the statements recorded, it was found that the main activity of Sri Renukamata was receiving huge amounts of cash from various persons (who are mostly persons of small means or mere carriers of cash), depositing the same in its Bank accounts and transferring out these funds through RTGS/other banking modes to various non- genuine entities on the instruction of the persons bringing the cash/the operators managing them. In some instances, SRMUCS used to receive funds in its bank accounts by RTGS/other banking modes, withdrawal the same as cash and hand over to the operators/persons connected to them. No proper KYC documents, deposits and withdrawal slips and other such documents were maintained. Thus, the society was being mainly used as a conduit for placement of unaccounted cash into the banking system. In the instant case, there are transactions of the assessee held with M/s Shri Renukamata Multi State Cooperative Urban Credit Society Ltd for Rs.9,42,98,840/-, about which the investigation revealed that accounts of persons with low income and shell entities/bogus companies were opened and cash was deposited, which is subsequently paid to the assessee. In reference to the same, the assessee has submitted that the sale was actually made to the M/s Parishram Bullion and payment is received from M/s Shri Renukamata Multi State Credit Society Ltd. The assessee is requested to furnish evidences in support of its contention as per notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. However, the assessee once again failed to furnish evidences in support of its contention and his contention is not acceptable. Therefore, show cause notice with proposed variations this regard vide DIN ITBA/AST/F/147(SCN)/2022-23/1043784770 dated 09.07.2022 has been issued in this regard. In response to the same the assessee vide its reply dated 13.07.2022 has Page 6 of 13

ITA No.563/Srt/2025 Amar Jeweller Pvt Ltd v. DCIT merely stated that "As regards the sales made to parishram Bullion. It is submitted that the party is not of low means as assessee made the sales of Rs.11,49,49,740/- against payments received through RTGS." As per the above reply the assessee has merely stated that M/s Parishram Bullion is not a party of low means. But, the assessee has failed to establish that the payment of sales claimed to be made to M/s Parishram Bullion is received from Shri Renukamata Multi State Credit Society Ltd, where M/s Parishram Bullion is maintaining any account. Actually, the assessee is required to establish actual delivery of goods through sales to M/s Parishram Bullion, but the assessee failed to substantiate actual sales and failed to demonstrate that the amount received from M/s Renuka Mata Renukamata Multi State Credit Society Ltd, is nothing but sales proceeds. In view of the discussion held above, the assessee has introduced his own unexplained money to the tune of Rs.91,87,29,655/- (Rs. 82,44,30,815 + Rs.9,42,98,840/-) in guise of sales in its books of account which it has not proved to be genuine and accordingly held as unexplained cash credits, hence added to the income of the assessee as per provisions of sec.68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Page 7 of 13

ITA No.563/Srt/2025 Amar Jeweller Pvt Ltd v. DCIT covered under search action u/s 132 of the 1. T. Act, 1961. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of gold and gold ornaments. The total income of the assessee comprises of income from business and profession 2. A notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 19.08.2014. In response to above notice, assessee filed the return of income for A.Y. 2013-14, declaring the total income at Rs.12,80,15,570/- on 20.10.2014. 3. The assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A on 28.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs. 12,84,15,570/- after making addition of Rs. 4 lacs on account of interest received for alleged loan given to joint venture of Dilip Sojitra. The addition was ultimately deleted by ld. CIT(A) vide their order dated 05.08.2016. 4. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 on 21.05.2021 was issued against the assessee by jurisdictional assessing officer. The assessing officer issued the letter u/s 148A(b) on 27.05.2022. Assessee filed detailed submission on 27.06.2022. Assessing officer made the addition of Rs.29,94,900/-u/s. 68 r.w.s. 69 as per finding at para 8 and addition of Rs. 91,87,29,655/- u/s 68 as per finding at para 10 to 13 of the assessment order. The assessing officer therefore made the addition of Rs.92,17,24,555/- as per the show cause notice by citing the wrong facts in the assessment order. 5. Against the reassessment order passed on 18.07.2020 assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) on 02.09 2022 and the same is pending. Further, the assessee requested the jurisdictional assessing officer to cancel the assessment order vide letter dated 06.10.2023 on the ground that assessee's case is the search case and the approval u/s 153D was obtained by the assessing officer while framing the original assessment order passed u/s 153A as mentioned in the assessment order dated 28.03.2016 where it was observed that "This assessment order is passed after prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Surat vide approval No. SRT/Jt CIT/Approval/CC-2/35/2015- 16/1097/92 dated 28.03.2016." However, while passing the reassessment order made u/s 148 on 18.07.2022, no such approval was taken and hence the order must be cancelled. The section 153D is reproduced as under. “No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA.” 6. The assessee in the appeals raised the issue that assessing officer has passed the reassessment order u/s 147 without obtaining prior approval from the JCIT as required u/s 153D. Assessee submits that the original assessment order was passed u/s 153A after obtaining the approval u/s 153D therefore re-assessment order is also required to be passed by obtaining prior approval necessary for assessment in case of search.

Page 8 of 13

ITA No.563/Srt/2025 Amar Jeweller Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 7. It is very clear from section 153D that no assessment or reassessment order can be passed as referred in section 153A(1)(b) unless the approval is taken from the Joint Commissioner. The new assessment is essentially u/s 147 r.ws 153A. The provision of section 153D is not applicable for the purpose of assessment but also for the purpose of reassessment as can be apparent from the bear reading of the provision. The section 148 and section 153D are in the same chapter no. XIV. Even as per section 148(1), the provisions of the Income Tax Act shall be applicable so far as may be 8. In view of the above submission your honour is requested to quash the assessment made u/s 147. 5.2 I have carefully perused the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, written submission made by the appellant and rectification order passed u/s 154 by the assessing officer and noticed that the present appeal has been filed against the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act, wherein the assessing officer has rectified the computation of interest u/s 234A and 234B. The impugned rectification order does not involve any action or finding under section 147/148, nor does it revisit the validity of the reopening proceedings or the reassessment order dated 18.07/2022. 5.3 It is a well-settled legal principle that, in an appeal against a specific order, the appellate authority is bound to confine its consideration strictly to the issues arising from that order alone, and cannot adjudicate upon matters pertaining to other proceedings or orders, unless such matters are expressly dealt with in the impugned order itself. The Assessing Officer, upon due verification, rectified the assessment by passing an order under section 154 of the Act. Specifically, interest under section 234A was initially levied at Rs.7,84,18,598. Upon rectification, it was recomputed at 66,14,606/-, resulting in a substantial reduction of 7,18,03,992/. Similarly, interest under section 234B was originally computed at 33,75,27,059/-, which upon rectification was revised to 33,24,55,475/- resulting in a reduction of 50,71,584/-. 5.4 Notably, the assessee has not challenged the quantum or correctness of the revised interest figures in this appeal. There is no assertion or evidence provided that the rectified interest computations are erroneous or prejudicial. Instead, the assessee has attempted to raise issues which pertain to the reassessment proceedings completed u/s 147 of the Act, particularly regarding the alleged absence of approval u/s 153D and the legal validity of reassessment proceedings themselves. 5.5 It is pertinent to note that Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, governs the circumstances under which an assessee is entitled to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The provision permits an appeal only in respect of matters arising from the order under challenge, and not beyond. In the instant case, the sole subject matter of the rectification order was the correction of excessive interest wrongly computed under sections 234A and 234B. 5.6 The grounds raised in this appeal bear no nexus to the corrected computations and instead pertain to the validity of the reassessment order, which ought to have been challenged independently by way of a separate appeal u/s 246A. In the present case, the

Page 9 of 13

ITA No.563/Srt/2025 Amar Jeweller Pvt Ltd v. DCIT order under appeal is a rectification order passed u/s 154, which the appellant, however, has attempted to raise substantive legal objections related to the validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147, specifically alleging lack of approval under section 153D. These issues do not emanate from the rectification order, nor were they addressed or adjudicated in that order. 5.7 Thus, although styled as an appeal against the rectification order, the present appeal seeks to litigate issues that are extraneous to the impugned order and therefore lies outside the permissible scope of order u/s 154. The appeal is, accordingly, misconceived, irrelevant to the matter at hand, and not maintainable in law. 6. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are dismissed as being beyond the purview of the impugned order passed u/s 154 and unrelated to the subject matter of this appeal. 7. Ground No. 3: "Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 7.1 This is a general and procedural ground taken by the appellant to preserve the right to raise additional grounds, if necessary, at the time of hearing. However, since no new or amended grounds have been brought on record during the course of appellate proceedings, no separate adjudication on this ground is warranted at this stage. 8. As a result, the appeal is hereby dismissed”.

Page 10 of 13

ITA No.563/Srt/2025 Amar Jeweller Pvt Ltd v. DCIT the assessee has filed the appeal against the rectification order u/s 144 of the Act. The original appeal filed against the order u/s 147, r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, is pending before the ld CIT(A), therefore, this matter may be restored back to the file the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, along with original appeal filed against the order u/s 147, r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.

ITA No.563/Srt/2025 Amar Jeweller Pvt Ltd v. DCIT assertion or evidence provided that the rectified interest computations are erroneous or prejudicial. Instead, the assessee has attempted to raise issues which pertain to the reassessment proceedings completed u/s 147 of the Act before ld.CIT(A), particularly regarding the alleged absence of approval u/s 153D and the legal validity of reassessment proceedings themselves. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) noted that section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, governs the circumstances under which an assessee is entitled to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The provision permits an appeal only in respect of matters arising from the order under challenge, and not beyond. In the instant case, the sole subject matter of the rectification order was the correction of excessive interest wrongly computed under sections 234A and 234B of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) also noted that grounds raised in this appeal bear no nexus to the corrected computations and instead pertain to the validity of the reassessment order, which ought to have been challenged independently by way of a separate appeal u/s 246A. In the present case, the order under appeal is a rectification order passed u/s 154, which the appellant, however, has attempted to raise substantive legal objections related to the validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147, specifically alleging lack of approval under section 153D of the Act. These issues do not emanate from the rectification order, nor were they addressed or adjudicated in that order. We have gone through the above findings of ld.CIT(A) and do not find any infirmity in the conclusion reached by the learned CIT(A).

ITA No.563/Srt/2025 Amar Jeweller Pvt Ltd v. DCIT order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication along with the main appeal (quantum appeal) of the assessee.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 06/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar ] [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] �ाियक सद�/ Judicial Member लेखा सद�/Accountant Member //True Copy// Surat िदनांक/ Date: 06/07/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to :  The assessee  The Respondent  CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, Surat  By order Guard File

Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/P.S. ITAT, Surat

Page 13 of 13