TEJYA KA BASS BAHUDHANDHI SAHKARI SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX WARD 7(1), JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1439/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2017-18) Tejya Ka Bass Vs. Income Tax BahudhandhiSahkari Ward 7(1) Samiti Jaipur Tejya Ka Bass Phulera Jaipur, Phulera �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AAEAT 0412 E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Mukesh Goel, CA Respondent by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 25.08.2025 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:-

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1439/JPR/2025 Tejya Ka Bass BahudhandhiSahkari Samiti 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and has not appreciated the fact that the reassessment proceeding is reopened on specified grounds issues as recorded in the reopening issued notice. However, the assessing officer has made an addition on an entirely different ground issue, which was not part of the reasons for reopening the assessment proceeding. Thus, rendering the reassessment invalid and the addition deserved to be deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in rejecting the appellant s condonation application of delay in filling the appeal by merely stating that the reasons stated for condoning the delay are not satisfactory, without passing a specific OR reasonable order, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in making the disallowance of the claim of Rs. 1443054/- under section 80P of the IT Act. 4. That the appellant craves his right to add, annul, amend, alter withdraw and/OR substitute any/ OR all of the grounds of appeal before the finalization of the appeal. 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act amounting to Rs.14,43,054/-. In the facts of the present case, assessment u/s 147 of the Act was framed and the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P of the Act, with respect to interest income earned from M/s Jaipur Central Cooperative Bank ,was held to be not allowable and accordingly was treated as other income of the assessee. The said assessment was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A),in the first appeal filed by the assessee before him. Aggrieved the assessee has come up in appeal before me.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1439/JPR/2025 Tejya Ka Bass BahudhandhiSahkari Samiti aspect. That it is judicially settled law that where addition on account of the reasons for reopening the case of the assessee is not made, the AO loses jurisdiction to make any other addition in the hands of the assessee in assessments framed u/s 147 of the Act. My attention was drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ram Singh reported in [2008] 306 ITR 343 (Raj.) holding that, once the Assessing Officer has reached the conclusion that the income which he believed to have escaped investment had been explained, the Assessing Officer did not continue to possess jurisdiction to tax any other income, which came to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings.

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1439/JPR/2025 Tejya Ka Bass BahudhandhiSahkari Samiti 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee thereafter, pointed out that, the AO was satisfied on the explanation given by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposited of Rs.10,37,000/- in his bank account. However, he went on to disallow the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act on interest earned on deposits amounting to Rs.14,43,054/- on deposits made with the Cooperative Bank.

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 1439/JPR/2025 Tejya Ka Bass BahudhandhiSahkari Samiti Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court stating that in such facts and circumstances, the AO loses his jurisdiction to make addition on any other count once he satisfied that the income which he believed to have escaped assessment stood satisfactorily explained to him, I have no hesitation in holding that the addition made to the income of the assessee of Rs.14,43,054/- is not tenable in law. I accordingly direct deletion of the addition so made. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2026

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 25.06.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur