MEET SHAILESHBHAI MANIAR,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोट �ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 257/RJT/2026 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Shri Meet Shaileshbhai Maniar, The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot Block No.B-9, Shree Bhavani Krupa, Vs. Maninagar, Nr. Rameshwar Park, Bapa Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Sitaram Chowk, Raiya Road, Rajkot 360007 Road, Rajkot. �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: CGIPM1223K (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11/03/2026 : 08/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment year 2020- 21 is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order 19.12.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section, 147 r.w.s. 143 (3) of the Act.

2..The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another.

5.In response to various notices, the assessee submitted its reply which is reproduced below: “1.Notice u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for the assessment year under consideration was served on me on 21 March 2024, which was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAC) with affixing digital signature. The said notice contains as under. (i) JAO has information that search u/s 132 of the Act was initiated in my case or in the case of person in respect of which I am assessable under the Act on 24/08/2021 (ii) (W) JAO is satisfied with the approval of Pr. Commissioner documents seized Commissioner that books of account requisitioned u/s 132 or 132A of the Act in case of Shin Praful Gangdev pertains to or information contained therein relates to me or the person in respect of which I am assessable under the Act. 2.In connection with the above, at the outset, it is submitted that the reason for issuing notice uls. 148 of the Act is not clear or specific on the face of notice. On the first bullet point, it is stated that the notice u/s 148 of the Act is issued on account of search action uls 132 of the Act initiated in my case or in the case of person in respect of which I am assessable under the Act. However, on the second bullet point, it is stated that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is issued after obtaining approval of PCIT on account of certain documents pertaining to me have been seized during the course of search in the case of Shri Praful Gangdev. Therefore, notice is not clear on which specific issue or limb, the assessment proceeding has been initiated. Hence, in absence of any specific allegation or charge established, there is no legal validity of such vague notice and thus, assessment proceeding initiated by issuing such template-based notice is strongly objected. 3.Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that I was not served with the show-cause notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act and not provided the opportunity of being heard and issued the impugned notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Therefore, service of notice ufs. 148 of the Act without issuing notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act is completely illegal and unjustified. 4.Without prejudice to the above, the details called are furnished hereunder in protest: 5.During relevant previous year I have derived commission income and income from other sources, i.e. interest income etc. Copy of return of income is attached at Annexure-1. 6.Details of bank accounts held during the year under consideration is as under. Name of the Bank Bank Account Number Bank of India SA 312710110003023 Bank of Baroda SA 36/20100012246 6.1 Copy of bank statement are attached Annexure- 7.During the period under consideration, I have not purchased any immovable making money project Spire-2 and hence, the question property payment does not arises.It is submitted that I have neither purchased immovable property in FY 2018-19 or 2020-21. 8.As regardless the allegation of on money payment of Rs.10,74,000/- in cash to Praful Gangdev. It is submitted that I do not know person named as Praful Pratul Cangdev. Narendra Gangdev and I have not purchased any property from him during the year under consideration. Hence, the question of making payment does not arise. 8.1Further, it is not known how the allegation of on-money payment to Praful Gangdev amounting to Rs.10,74,000/- has been made. It is requested to provide documents based on which the allegation of unaccounted transaction has been made in the course of natural justice to raise further objection in the matter. It is requested to provide all relevant information and relied upon material/documents / data / statements etc. After availing photocopies of relevant documents, I shall raise further objection and meanwhile, it is requested to keep the proceeding in abeyance. 9. I am not liable to maintain books of account and hence, cash flow statement is not applicable. 10. Without prejudice to the above and by reserving my right to challenge the validity of assessment proceeding-initiated u/s. 147 of the Act in higher forum, it is submitted that I have already furnished return of income in response to notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. Copy of return of income has been attached at Annexure-1 supra”. 6. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the above contention of the assessee and held that assessee has purchased immovable property and paid cash of 5 Rs.10,74,000/-, but the same has not been disclosed in the books of accounts. Further, no reply explanation and supporting documentary evidence in respect of source of such investment was submitted by the assessee, therefore Assessing Officer made the addition to the tune of Rs.10,74,000/-, under Section, 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

7.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, therefore, assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal.

For that I relied on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench, ITAT-Rajkot, in the case of Aditya Plastic vs. ITO, in ITA No.185 & 186/Rjt/2024 for assessment year 2013-14 wherein it was held as follows :

“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 assessees 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 Today on 08/06/2026.

Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] Accountant Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 08/06/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. Guard File By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot