ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RANJEET BIRANI, JAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, quashing the reassessment proceedings. It followed the Rajasthan High Court's decision that when incriminating material belonging to a third party is seized during a search, proceedings under Section 153C should be resorted to, not Section 148.
What were the facts?
During a search in the Ramesh Manihar Group, incriminating documents were seized indicating the assessee advanced loans and earned unaccounted interest. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on this material.
What were the issues?
Whether reassessment proceedings under Section 148 are valid when seized material belongs to a third party, or if Section 153C is the appropriate provision.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur-5, (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 20.08.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).
P a g e | 2 ITA No.1517/JPR/2025 ACIT Vs Ranjeet Birani
The revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal: - (i) Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment proceedings based solely on the High Court judgment in DBCWP 18363/2019, without considering the unique facts and circumstances of the present case.
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) is justified in holding that notice u/s 148 is not sustainable legally relying upon the order of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court's order dated 19.03.2024 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019 and several other linked petitions wherein wrongly held that once there is incriminating material seized or requisitioned belonging or relatable to the person other than on whom search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to without giving any finding that issuance of notice under section 148 was incorrect. Thus, the CIT (A) is not justified in quashing notice issued u/s 148 of the Act.
(iii) Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in overturning the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the precedent set by the Hon. Supreme Court of India in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Circle 1(2) V/s. M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Private Limited (2022) 14 SCC 101. In light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the aforementioned case, the Learned CIT (A) should have upheld the issuance of the notice under Section 148, unless there were compelling reasons to deviate from the established legal precedent.
(iv) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceeding.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee e-filed his original return of income for the year under consideration on 18.09.2012 declaring a total income at Rs. “NIL”. Subsequently, information was received from the ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur that search & seizure action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out in the case of Ramesh Manihar Group on 07.01.2016. During the course of search, voluminous data comprising of excel sheets in the 18 pen-drives were seized from main office of the Ramesh Manihar Group at 303, Ratna Sagar, MSB Kaa Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. On analysis of the above seized documents, it was found that Shri Ramesh Chand Maheshwari
P a g e | 3 ITA No.1517/JPR/2025 ACIT Vs Ranjeet Birani and Shri Manmohan Krishan Bagla of the Ramesh Manihar group were engaged as finance brokers for arranging cash loans between various borrowers and lenders which were not reflected in the books of accounts and the brokerage received for such unrecorded cash transactions were also not offered for taxation. The said seized documents also indicated that the assessee was also one of the beneficiaries and advanced loans through the Ramesh Manihar group and also earned unaccounted interest thereon, which required to be taxed. Accordingly, the AO initiated reopening proceedings u/s 147 of the Act against the assessee and after recording the reasons issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 20.03.2019 after obtaining due approval of the competent authority for the escapement of income to the tune of Rs.5,45,00,000/-. 4. The assessee challenged the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by filing a writ petition before the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court. However, before the writ petition was decided by the Hon’ble High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal vide dated 04.05.2022 issued certain direction to the Income Tax department and in pursuance of that the CBDT issued Instructions No. 01/2022/F.No.279/Misc./M-51/2022-ITJ dated 11.05.2022 and prescribed certain procedures before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing officer, after following the said CBDT instruction, afforded the assessee the opportunity of being heard as per the provision of section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act.
P a g e | 4 ITA No.1517/JPR/2025 ACIT Vs Ranjeet Birani
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on the ground that the seized documents in question were seized from a third party and therefore, proceedings u/s 153C of the Act should have been initiated against the assessee and not u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order dated 20/08/2025 allowed the appeal of the assessee and quashed the entire proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act on the ground that the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in DB Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019 dated 19.03.2024 has quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by holding as under: - “23. The reasons supplied in case in hand for initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 are based on the incriminating material and documents including Pen Drives seized during the search carried out of the Manihar Group and the statements recorded during proceedings. From the information received the AO noticed that the loan advanced and interest earned thereon were unaccounted. In other words the basis for initiation of Section 148 proceedings is the material seized relating to or belonging to the petitioner, during the search conducted of Manihar Group. 24. In the case where search or requisition is made, the AO under Section 153A mandatorily is required to issue notices to the assessee for filing of income tax return for the relevant preceding years. The AO assumes jurisdiction to assess/reassess ‘total income’ by passing separate order for each assessment. 25. In cases of the person other than on whom search was conducted but material belonging or relating such person was seized or requisition, the AO has to proceed under Section 153C. The two pre-requisites are that the AO dealing with the assessee on whom search was conducted or requisition made, being satisfied that seized material belongs or relates to other assessee shall hand over it to AO having jurisdiction of such assessee. Thereafter, the satisfaction of AO receiving the seized material that the material handed over has a bearing for determination of total income of such other person for the relevant preceding years. On fulfillment of twin conditions the AO shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. 26. Special procedure is prescribed under Section 153A to 153D for assessment in cases of search and requisition. There cannot be a quibble with the proposition that the special provision shall prevail over the general provision. To say it differently the provisions of Section 153A to 153D have prevalence over the regular provisions for assessment or reassessment under Section 143 & 147/148.
P a g e | 5 ITA No.1517/JPR/2025 ACIT Vs Ranjeet Birani
Section 153A and 153C starts with non-obstante clause. The procedure for assessment/reassessment in Section 153A, 153C in cases of search or requisition has an overriding effect to the regular provisions for assessmentor reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C. Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 153D, the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148. 29. The Department has not set up a case that for initiating proceedings under Section 148 it had material other than the material seized during the search of Manihar Group. The contention was that though the material with regard to unaccounted loan advanced by the petitioner was received, the earning of interest on unaccounted loan was derivation of the AO from the material received. The submission is that the derived conclusion cannot be acted upon under Section 153C. The submission lacks merit and shall defeat the concept of single assessment order for each of relevant preceding years for assessing ‘total income’ in case of incriminating material found during search or requisition. 30. The argument that by enactment of Section 153A to 153D has not eclipsed Section 148 does not enhance the case of respondent to initiate the proceedings under Section 148. On fulfillment of two conditions for invoking Section 153C the proceeding in accordance with Section 153A are to be initiated. The operating field of and Section 153A to 153D and Section 148 are different. Applicability of Section 153C in cases where the seized material related to or belonged toperson other than on whom search is conducted or requisition made does not render Section 148 otiose. Section 148 shall continue to apply to the regular proceedings and also in cases where no incriminating material is seized during the search or requisition. 31. The other aspect of the matter is that under Section 153A and 153C, ‘the total income’ is to be assessed. The total income includes returned income (if any), undisclosed income unearthed during the search or requisitioning and information possessed from the other sources. For Illustration:- An assessee had returned income of Rs.100, undisclosed income of Rs.200 is unearthed during search and there is information from annual information statement of non-disclosure of income of Rs.150/-. The AO under Section 153A and 153C shall pass order dealing with income of Rs.100+Rs.200+Rs.150, the total income being Rs.450/-. In cases where there is no unearthing of undisclosed income of Rs.200/-, the department can resort to proceeding under Section 147/148. 32. The argument that Section 153C can be invoked in case there is incriminating material for all the relevant preceding years and otherwise Section 148 is to be resorted to, is misplaced. On satisfaction of the twin condition for proceedings under Section 153C, the AO has to proceed in accordance with Section 153A. Notice is to be issued for filing of the returns for relevant preceding years and thereupon proceed to assess or
P a g e | 6 ITA No.1517/JPR/2025 ACIT Vs Ranjeet Birani reassess the ‘total income’. It is notobligatory on the AO to make assessment for all the years, the earlier orders passed may be accepted. But once there is incriminating material seized or requisitioned belonging or relatable to the person other than on whom search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to. ………………………….. 40. In view of above discussion, the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders are quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.” 6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the revenue has filed this appeal before us. 7. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also considered the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and respectfully following the same, confirm the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as we find no infirmity in the said order. 8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order is pronounced under the provisions of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 15/05/2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) (Ratnesh Nandan Sahay) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 15/05/2026 *Ranjan Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order,
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Jaipur
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026