PRAGATI MARBLE & GRANITES PVT LTD,KISHANGARH, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD-1, KISHENGARH, KISHANGARH ,RAJASTHAN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2017-18)

Pragati Marble & Granites Vs. ITO Pvt. Ltd. Ward 1 Pragati Marble & Granites Kishengarh Pvt Ltd. Harmara Road, Industrial Area, Kishangarh, Rajasthan �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AAACP 8874E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Sandeep Goel, Adv. (Thu V.C.) Respondent by : Mrs. Arti Rawat, JCIT Date of Hearing 29.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- 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 12.09.2025 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. 2. Brief facts relating to the case are that regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made and addition made to the income of the assessee of Rs.32,02,500/- on account of cash deposits in his bank account, the source of which allegedlyremained unexplained. 3. The assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where in the absence of any compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), The Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex parte on the basis of material before him, confirming the addition made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising the following grounds:- 10.1 The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in law and fact in upheld the addition of Rs.32,02,500/- on account of cash deposited during demonetization period as unexplained income and erroneously applying provision of section 69A; 10.2 That impugned order passed u/s 250 by NFAC/CITA, dismissing the appeal of the assesse and sustaining impugned assessment order of Ld. AO is unlawful as in violation of principles of natural justice without service of notice u/s 250 in correct address of the appellant; 10.3 That impugned order passed u/s 250 by NFAC/CITA dismissing the appeal of the assesse and sustaining addition made of Rs.32,02,500/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on surmises & conjectures without verification of book of accounts; 5. The assessee has also filed additional grounds vide letter dated 05.02.2026, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder:- Additional Legal Ground :- 1. That Ld AO erred in issue of notice under Section 143(2) on 09/08/2018 is in violation of Instruction F.No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017 without specifying scope and reasons of scrutiny and thus notice itself is invalid as per law.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. 2. That impugned assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is invalid as no valid show cause notice specifying section 69A as first time added in assessment order was issued to the appellant.

b) SC in NTPC case 229 ITR 383 c) SC in Karan singh vs Chaman Paswan 1955 1 SCR 117 (4 judge bench) Even it is settled law by now that that such legal and jurisdictional issue can be raised even for first time before SC under article 136 of constitution of india (refer 1950 SCR 852; AIR 1965 SC 1325; 1991 1 SCC 761, AIR 1966 SC 249, 2020 2 SCC 524 & 2021 SCC online SC 552)

Humble Praver/relief sought That additional jurisdictional and legal ground (s) raised supra may please be admitted for adjudication by Hon'ble ITAT: That same as per settled judicial position may please be decided in assessee/appellant favour and impugned asst/first appeal order are quashed and annulled. That assessee's appeal may please be allowed in toto. 6. At the outset itself, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that ground No.1 is not being urged/pressed before us. For the remaining two legal grounds raised, he pleaded admission of the same placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as noted in his communication, holding that legal and jurisdictional issues can be raised even for the first time at any stage, even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. 7. Considering that the additional grounds raised and pressed by the assessee being Ground No.2 and 3 are legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment framed as also the addition of the gross amount to the income of the assessee as opposed to estimation of profits embedded thereon being made in the backdrop of books of accounts being rejected, the said grounds are being admitted for adjudication. 8. Taking up ground No.2 of the additional grounds first for adjudication. The challenge to the validity of the assessment framed in the said ground by the assessee is on the ground that the show cause notice issued to the assessee did not specify the section under which the addition was proposed to be made by the AO. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sreedhanya Construction Company Vs. ACIT in WP(C) No.39722/2025 dated 19.11.2025. The said decision was stated to be an interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court and copy of the same was placed before us in paper book of case laws at page No. 52 and 53. 9. The Ld. DR however opposed the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee stating that show cause notice described the complete basis on which the addition was being proposed to be made in the hands of the assessee and there was no reason therefore to specify the particular section invoking which the addition was being made. His contention was that the show cause notice clearly brought out the circumstances in which the AO had proposed treating certain amount as income of the assessee leaving nothing to doubt and in the absence of any infirmity in the reasoning of the AO for proposing to treat the impugned amount as

P a g e | 5 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. income of the assessee, the requirement of specifying the section was a mere formality which did not in any way effect the validity of the assessment framed. His contention was that the purpose of show cause notice being to confront the assessee with the basis for treating certain amounts as income of the assessee and the same being specified in the present case, the show cause notice was issued to the assessee could not in any way be treated to be deficient so as to effect the validity of the assessment framed in the present case. The case law relied by the ld. Counsel for the assessee was also distinguished before us. 10. We have heard both the parties. For adjudicating the issue whether the show cause notice issued in the present case was deficient enough so as toeffect the validity of the assessment framed in the present case, it is pertinent to reproduce the contents of the show cause notice as under:- On perusal of the replies/submission filed by you during the course of assessment proceedings from time to time following disrespects were noticed :- 1. Regarding the cash deposits Rs.17,02,500/- on 12.11.2016 and Rs. 15,00,000/- on 29.11.2019 in your bank account No.7311337146 with Kotak Mahendra Bank of you have replied that these deposits were out of cash in hand as on the date of demonetization. If such a huge amount of cash was there in old demonetised currency, why this amount was not deposited in one time ?Whythere is gap of 17 days in depositing the amount in your bank account ? 2. Copy of sales tax/ VAT return has not been furnished by you to establish the sales made during the year under consideration, 3. All the cash sales has been claimed by you in the period of April, 2016 to July, 2016. There is not a single transaction of cash sale before and after this period which is which is strange not justified in any kind of business. 4. There is not a single cash deposit in the aforesaid bank account except the cash deposit of Rs.32,02,500/- made during the demonetization period.

P a g e | 6 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. 5. No documentary evidence regarding cash sales has been furnished by you. 6. No books of accounts has been produced by you for verification. In view of all the above fact your explanation given regarding the cash deposits of Rs.32,02,500/- made during demonetization period is not found justified. You are therefore, required to show cause as to why the deposits of Rs.32,02,500/- be treated as your income from undisclosed sources and add to your income for the year under consideration. 11. As noted above, addition in the present case was made by the AO on account of cash found deposited in the bank account of the assessee, the source of which remained unexplained. 12. In the assessment order, the AO has added the said unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act. Section 69A deems unexplained money to be the income of the assessee. The relevant provisions of Section 69A of the Act are reproduced hereunder for clarity:- ….. Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. ….. 13. As is evident from a bare perusal of the above, where the assessee found to be an owner of any money and such money is not recorded in the books of accounts maintained by him from any source of income and the assessee does not offer any explanation about the nature and source of

P a g e | 7 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. such money to the satisfaction of the AO, the said money is deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. 14. In the present appeal, the case of the Revenue is that the assessee was noted to have deposited cash in its bank accounts and there was no satisfactory explanation furnished by the assessee regarding the same. 15. The case of the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us is not that the AO had wrongly invoked Section 69A of the Act while making the addition in the assessment order, his case is that Section 69A of the Act was not mentioned in the show cause notice issued to the assessee. 16. Undoubtedly Section 69A of the Act is not mentioned by the AO in the show cause notice but the contention of the Ld. DR is that the show cause notice clearly brought out the fact of there being cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee to the tune of Rs.32,02,500/- to which no satisfactory explanation was furnished by the assessee and the AO proposed treating the same as his income from undisclosed sources is clear. The show cause notice reproduced above specifically brings out the fact of the cash deposited on two different dates in the bank account of the assessee and the AO not being satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee of the cash in hand available with the assessee justifying the cash deposited. 17. He has noted in the show cause notice that the assessee has justified the cash in hand available, for deposit in the bank account, through cash sales made in the month of April to July, but he has noted that these were abnormal cash sales, since there was no cash sales before or after this period. He also noted that the sales reflected by the assessee have not

P a g e | 8 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. been justified and substantiated with copy of sales tax/VAT returns. He has also noted anomalies of the cash deposited occurring in the bank account only on these two occasions and not otherwise in the entire year by the assessee. The AO has also pointed out the fact of no documentary evidence being furnished regarding cash sales and no books of accounts being produced by the assessee. 18. Thus in the show cause notice, the AO has clearly brought out all facts and circumstances on the basis of which he had doubted the assessee's explanation of the source of cash deposited in his bank account and thereafter, he has sought explanation from the assessee as to why the same should not be treated as his income for undisclosed sources. There is no doubt therefore that the AO had clearly brought out in the show cause notice his intention of treating the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee as his income from undisclosed sources in the absence of any explanation of the source of the same furnished by the assessee. No infirmity in this reasoning of the AO has been pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. It is not his case that the entire case made out by the AO in his show cause notice without referring to Section 69A of the Act, did not justify the addition being made u/s 69A of the Act, which he ultimately made. Nor was it his case that it could not be inferred from show cause notice that the addition was being made by invoking Section 69A of the Act. 19. When the assessee was pointed out the entire facts and circumstances leading to the addition being proposed in the case of the assessee and there was no infirmity in the reasoning of the AO pointed

P a g e | 9 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. out before us, we agree with the Ld. DR that the mere non-mentioning of the section 69A of the Act in the show cause notice would not render the entire show cause notice as invalidly, more particularly when it is not the case of the assessee that section 69A of the Act has been wrongly invoked by the AO while making the addition. The purpose of show cause notice is to confront the assessee finally with the additions being proposed to be made in his case with justifiable reasons . These conditions having been found to be fulfilled in the present case, we do not find any infirmity in the show cause notice so as to render it invalid. 20. The case law relied by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of Sreedhanya Construction Company (Supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. We have gone through the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court and we have noted that at para 2 of the order, the Hon'ble High Court categorically noted the petitioner to have stated before the court that Section 69A of the Act will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 21. The case before the Hon'ble High Court was the notice issued to the petitioner did not mention Section 69A of the Act being invoked for making addition in his hands and the Hon'ble High Court quashed the order passed as a consequence of such notice. However the facts of the said case are different from the facts of the present case since in the case before the Hon'ble High Court the applicability of Section 69A of the Act to the addition made was also pointed out to be incorrect, which in the facts of the present case is not the situation. Therefore the said decision, we hold is of no assistance to the assessee.

P a g e | 10 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. 22. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customer Mumbai Vs. M/s. Toyo Engineering India Limited in Appeal (Civil) No. 2532 of 2001 dated 31.08.2006, copy of which was filed before us. He has referred to the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the last para of their order in support of his contention that the Section 69A ought to have been specified in the show cause notice, which is reproduced hereunder:- …… Learned counsel for the Revenue tried to raise some of the submissions which were not allowed to be raised by the Tribunal before us, as well. We agree with the Tribunal that the revenue could not be allowed to raise these submissions for the first time in the second appeal before the Tribunal. Neither adjudicating authority nor the appellate authority had denied the facility of the project import to the respondent on any of these grounds. These grounds did not find mention in the show cause notice as well. The Department cannot betravel beyond the show cause notice. Even in the grounds ofappeals these points have not been taken. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. We agree with the findings recorded by theTribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. …… 23. On going through the relevant para of the Hon'ble Apex Court pointed out to us by the ld. Counsel for the assessee we fail to understand how it supports the contention of the assessee before us that the non- mentioning of the specific section in which addition is proposed to be made in the show cause notice would invalidate the entire assessment proceedings. The relevant portion of the Hon'ble Apex Court order only states that the Hon'ble Court noted the Revenue to be raising statements which did not find mention in the show cause notice also and noting so the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Department cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. These facts are completely different from the facts

P a g e | 11 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. before us and no benefit therefore can be derived by the assessee from the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 24. In the light of the same, we hold that non-specification of Section 69A in the show cause notice issued to the assessee does not invalidate the notice issued to the assessee and the additional ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee accordingly is rejected. 25. Additional ground No.2 is therefore dismissed. 26. Ground No.3 of the additional grounds raised before us states that the AO after rejecting books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145 (3) of the Act could not have added the gross amount of cash deposited in his bank account u/s 69A of the Act but ought to have estimated the profit embedded in such receipts under the head Income from Other Sources. 27. The fact on recordreveal that there is no rejection of books of accounts by the AO in his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee, in fact did not produce books of accounts before the AO at all. In such circumstances there is no question of rejection of books of accounts at all. We have dealt with an identical issue in the case of Anil Sharma Vs. ITO in ITA No.1081/JPR/2025 order dated 26.10.2026 wherein we have pointed out the circumstances in which section 145(3) of the Act can be invoked for rejecting the books of accounts, noting that as per law it can be done only after examining of the books of accounts of the assessee and on finding that they did not reflect the true and correct state of affairs of the assessee, and or were not prepared in accordance with prescribed accounting standards. Our relevant finding in the said decision are contained at para Nos. 16 to 24 as under:-

P a g e | 12 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. …… 16. We have heard the rival contention. The issue for our consideration is whether ;  the facts of the present case warranted invocation of section 145(3) of the Act, i.e. rejection of Books of accounts of the assessee and  whether as a consequence best judgement assessment ought to have been done as per section 144 of the Act;  And the AO therefore ought to have estimated profits/income of the assessee by applying a reasonable/justifiable net profit rate

P a g e | 13 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. standards notified under sub-section (2), the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided in section 144. …….. 20. Section 145(1) & (2) prescribe the method of accounting to be followed for computing income chargeable to tax under the head “Income from Business & Profession”. It states that accounting is to be done as per cash or mercantile system as regularly followed by the assessee and in accordance with the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards notified by the Central Government. Thereafter sub section (3) states that where the assessee is found not complying with the accounting as prescribed in sub section (1) & (2) or the AO is not satisfied with the correctness and completeness of the Books , then he can resort to best judgment assessment. As per section 145 therefore, as the assessing officer examines the accounts of the assessee, he has to consider the following questions:-  whether the assessee has regularly employed a method of accounting  Even if regular adoption of a method of accounting is there , whether the annual profit can properly be deduced from the method employed  Whether the accounts are correctly maintained  Whether the accounts maintained are complete in the sense that there is no significant omission therein. 20.1. If the answer to the above is in thenegative then the AO can make a best judgement assessment in the manner provided u/s 144 of the Act. 20.2. Thus Section 145(3) of the Act is invoked when on examination of Books of accounts of the assessee, the conditions noted in sub section (3) are found to exist. 21. In the facts of the present case, undoubtedly and admittedly, the assessee has neither furnished his books of accounts nor any vouchers in support of his claim of expenses, or for that matter to establish the genuineness of his creditors or the gift received by him. It remains as a matter of fact that the assessee remained non-compliant during assessment proceedings. Such facts do not warrant rejection of Books of accounts as per section 145(3) of the Act. When the Books of accounts admittedly have not been produced before AO, there arises no question of the AO arriving at any satisfaction at all about the correctness or completeness of the Books of accountsor the method of accounting as prescribed in Sub- Section (1) of Section 145 of the Act not being regularly followed for maintenance of Books of accounts. Therefore, we agree with the Ld. CIT(A),that there is no rejection of Books of accounts in the present case, since the said fact has not been stated by the AO in the order passed, nor do the facts demonstrate existence of conditions to warrant rejection of Books of accounts. 22. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the fact that the AO disallowed 20% of all expenses incurred shows that he had in effect rejected the Books of accounts of the assessee, merits no consideration for the reasons stated above. Disallowance of expenses is a mere methodology adopted by the AO for arriving at the correct income of the assessee in the circumstances before him, where no books of accounts were produced by the assessee for verification by the AO of the claim of income returned to tax during the year by the assessee 23. The reliance placed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee on the decision of the ITAT Jaipur Benches in the case of Choudhary and Brothers Vs. ITO in ITA No.583/JPR/2009 order dated 30.09.2010 for his case of there being implied rejection of books of accounts, we find has been rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) stating that the facts of the said case were clearly distinguishable. We have noted that in the facts of the said case, the AO had mentioned the defects in the books under each head for disallowances, and the Ld. CIT(A)

P a g e | 14 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. agreed with the defects pointed out by the AO in the books of account maintained by the assessee, and also observed further defects in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. The ITAT accordingly held that all the observations about the defects in the maintenance of account by the Lower Authorities showed that the books of accounts maintained by the assessee were not worth relying for deducing the correct income, and thus by implications, books of account of the assessee were treated to be rejected. In the facts of the present case, the books of accounts were not produced before the AO at all and therefore there is neither any question of any defects being pointed out in the same nor is a matter of fact any defect was pointed out by the AO in the books of the assessee, therefore no reliance can be placed on the decision of the ITAT Jaipur Benches in the case of Choudhary & Brothers (Supra) for making the case of implicated rejection of books of accounts. 24. We accordingly hold that there was no rejection of books of accounts of the assessee by the AO, implied or otherwise, and accordingly reject this contention raised before us by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Having held so, however we find that in the absence of any cooperation by the assessee for the assessment of its income, undoubtedly the provisions of Section 144 of the Act are invoked and the AO is empowered to assess the income of the assessee to the best of his judgment. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us is that the AO ought to have estimated the net profits of the assessee based on past data or industrial results or whatever. The law only provides that the AO should assess the income of the assessee to the best of his judgment in a judicious manner and should not exercise his powers arbitrarily, making ad hoc disallowance or additions without any basis at all. The AO acts in a quasi judicial capacity and the object of the assessment proceedings is to determine the true and correct income liable to tax of an assessee. Powers of best judgment have to be exercised in a judicious manner, there is no doubt about it. But the fact that best judgment assessment has to be compulsorily done by estimating the profits, adopting the net profit rate, is definitely not the only prescribed method of framing assessment. That is best left for the AO to do. The assessee at the most can challenge the best judgment assessment pointing out arbitrariness in the exercise of power by the AO. …… 28. Therefore in the facts of the present case since there is no rejection of books of accounts of the assessee, the basic premise of the ground raised by the assessee before us is demolished and the ground raised therefore needs to be rejected for this reason alone. 29. However we find that the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that only the net profit element in the cash deposits ought to have been added is also grossly incorrect on facts itself. The show cause notice issued by the AO clearly brings out the fact that the AO found no sufficient reason to believe that the cash found deposited in the bank

P a g e | 15 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. account of the assessee was out of the cash sales made by the assessee since neither any books of accounts were produced by the assessee nor bills of sales were produced by the assessee. There was deficiencies and anomalies found in the cash sales reflected by the assessee noted to have been reflected only in the period prior to demonetization and not before or after that, the assessee also was found to have deposited cash only in demonetization period not before or after that. In effect 30. Therefore in effect the AO had seriously doubted the fact claimed by the assessee that the cash deposits was out of the sales made by the assessee. The assessee did not admittedly respond to the show cause notice issued by the AO confronting the assessee with his dissatisfaction with the explanation of the assessee..Therefore the AOs dissatisfaction with the assessee's explanation remained. The assessee was unable to discharge his onus to prove that the cash deposited in the bank account was out of the cash sales and accordingly the AO treated the entire cash deposited in the account as not out of sales but out of some undisclosed income of the assessee. Nothing has been brought on record before the AO or Ld. CIT(A) or before us to controvert this finding of the AO. The assessee made no attempt whatsoever to clarify and justify his explanation of having made cash sales, cash from which was deposited in his bank account. 31. We completely agree with the revenue authorities therefore that the entire amount be treated as the income of the assessee from other sources. The net profit or gross profit estimation could only be restored only if it was accepted that the cash deposits emanated from cash sales made by

P a g e | 16 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. the assessee. But this is not the case of the Revenue, nor has the assessee in any way established the said fact. 32. Therefore even otherwise the contention raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us that addition only of the alleged profit element embedded in the receipts ought to have been added is found to be completely devoid of merits. Ground of appeal No.3 therefore is dismissed. 33. As regards grounds raised on merits the ld. Counsel for the assessee's contention was with regard to addition being made on estimation basis that is by estimating the net profit element in the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee. This argument has already been rejected by us while dealing with ground No. 3 raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee above. Therefore all the grounds raised on merits also stands rejected. 34. Before us ld. Counsel for the assessee orally pleaded that the invocation of section 115BBE of the Act by the AO for taxing the addition made in the hands of the assessee at the rates specified therein was incorrect since the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Deepak Maratha Vs. UOI in Civil Writ Petition No. 3625/2020 order dated 27 May, 2026 has categorically held that Section 115BBE of the Act could not be invoked in AY 2017-18 the impugned year before us. 35. Ld. DR was unable to controvert the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us. 36. In view of the same, we hold that the Section 115BBE of the Act has been incorrectly involved in the facts of the present case, and we

P a g e | 17 ITA No.1571/JPR/2025 Pragati Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd. direct the AO to compute the taxes as per the normal provisions applicable. 37. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms. 38. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. Senthil Kumar) (Annapurna Gupta) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 28.10.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Mittali Digitally signed by: Mittali Asst. Registrar DN: CN = Mittali email = ITAT, Jaipur mittaligupta34671@gmail.com C = IN O = Personal Date: 2026.10.30 12:44:49 +05'30'