BIMLA GUPTA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

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.912/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2009-10)

Bimla Gupta Vs. ITO D-50, Chomu House, C- Ward 1(3) Scheme, Jaipur Rajasthan Jaipur 302001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AHIPG 0741R Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Ashok Kr. Gupta & Sh. S.L. Jain, Adv Departmentby : 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 15.04.2025 under Section 250of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No.912/JPR/2025 Bimla Gupta 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. The impugned order U/s 147/144 dated 26/10/2016 as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, Initiation as well as complete proceedings in respect thereto are illegal, bad in law for wants of jurisdiction, barred by limitation and various other reasons (grounds), against the provisions and contrary to the lawful procedure and real facts of the case hence complete proceedings and ordersincluding assessment order are liable to be quashed. 2. The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,11,300/- on account of Unexplained Deposit, and also erred without specifying the provision of the Income Tax Act under which he is making addition, without bringing any cogent material and corroborative evidence and without considering the materials and explanations available on records in their true perspective and sense therefore the same may kindly be deleted in toto, 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition as made by the Ld. AO without issuing specific show cause notice to the assessee before making such addition hence violation of naturaj justice therefore complete addition should be deleted in toto. 4. The Id. AO has grosslyerred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234B and D. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on factsof the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full. 5. That the appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing. 3. Briefly stated in the facts of the present case both the assessment order passed and the Ld. CIT(A) order passed are ex parte. The assessment has been framed after making addition of cash found deposited in the bank account of the assessee amounting to Rs.12,11,300/-, the source of which remained unexplained. 4. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised arguments with respect to the legal ground challenging the validity of the assessment framed in ground No.1. His contention was that assessment in the present case was framed u/s 147 of the Act for reopening the case of the assessee

P a g e | 3 ITA No.912/JPR/2025 Bimla Gupta and the jurisdictional notice u/s 148 of the Act was not served on the assessee. That the service of the jurisdictional notice was mandatory for a valid assessment of jurisdiction to frame assessment u/s 147 of the Act and in the absence of the same, the assessment order passed in the present case was bad in law. 5. We have noted that before the Ld. CIT(A) also the assessee had raised an identical ground in Ground No.6, while dealing with whichthe Ld. CIT(A) noted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and duly served on the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted an affidavit of the assessee before us stating on oath that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 23.03.2016 was never served upon him .In the affidavit she has stated to be a resident of D-50, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur Rajasthan 302001, having PAN AHIPG0741R. 6. In response to the affidavit filed by the assessee a factual report of the AO was furnished by the Ld. DR on the direction of the Bench who had directed the AO to submit his response to the same vide order sheet entry dated 14.07.2026. The factual report of the AO categorically stated that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was sent through speed post dispatch No.3435 and was served on the assessee. Copy of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was also filed before us reflecting the fact of the same having been issued through speed post and the address noted in the notice u/s 148 of the Act is the same as mentioned by the assessee in her affidavit, D-50, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 7. Ld. DR further pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) had referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. M/s I Ven

P a g e | 4 ITA No.912/JPR/2025 Bimla Gupta Interactive Ltd. Civil Appeal No.8132 of 2019 dated 18.10.2019 holding that once the notice isissued by the AO on the address provided in the PAN database, the same is to be treated as validly served in terms of provisions of Section 282 of the Act. Copy of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court was also placed before us. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee sought time to distinguish the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, but was unable to distinguish the same before us. He however relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chetan Gupta [2015] 62 taxmann.com 249 for his contention that the notice u/s 148 has to be mandatorily served upon the assessee in accordance with Section 282(1) read with Order V, Rule 12 CPC and order III Rule 6 CPC. To this assessee was asked to demonstrate how the service of notice in the present case through speed post was not in accordance with Section 282 of the Act. For the sake of clarity Section 282 of the Act is reproduced hereunder:- ….. Service of notice generally. 282. (1) The service of a notice or summon or requisition or order or any other communication under this Act (hereafter in this section referred to as "communication") may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof, to the person therein named,— (a) by post or by such courier services as may be approved by the Board; or (b) in such manner as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purposes of service of summons; or (c) in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000); or (d) by any other means of transmission of documents as provided by rules made by the Board in this behalf. (2) The Board may make rules providing for the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which the communication referred to in sub- section (1) may be delivered or transmitted to the person therein named.

P a g e | 5 ITA No.912/JPR/2025 Bimla Gupta Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expressions "electronic mail" and "electronic mail message" shall have the meanings as assigned to them in Explanation to section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000). …… 9. As is evident from the perusal of the said section the service of notice is required to be made by post or such courier services as may be approved by the Board. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee was asked as to how the service of notice in the present case was not in accordance to Section 282 or the CPC as noted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chetan Gupta(supra) to which he was unable to give any response and except from the relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chetan Gupta (Supra) the ld. Counsel for the assessee has nothing to say. 10. It is evident from the above therefore that both the Ld. CIT(A) and the AO having concurrently found the notice u/s 148 of the Act to have been duly served on the assessee; the AO having submitted a report stating that the notice was served through speed post giving a specific number 3435 of the dispatch of the same also; the said notice having not returned back as unserved; the service of notice u/.s 148 of the Act undoubtedly is in accordance with Section 282 of the Act. 11. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of M/s I Ven Interactive Ltd. (Supra) has categorically held that notice issued at the said address of the assessee within the time specified under the relevant section and in compliance with the requirements of Section 282 of the Act is to be treated as duly served on the assessee.

P a g e | 6 ITA No.912/JPR/2025 Bimla Gupta 12. In the facts of the case before the Hon’ble apex court the contention of the assessee was the same as in the present case that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act sent by the AO at the address mentioned in the PAN database was not served on the assessee. The assessee had contended that it had changed its name and address, shifted to a new address and therefore the said notice was not served upon the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court ruled that in the absence of any change in the address in the PAN database by the assessee, the issue of notice on the address at the PAN database was justified by the AO. The notice being issued within the time prescribed in law, the actual service of the notice upon the assessee was held to be immaterial. 13. In the facts of the present case also notice by speed post , as prescribed u/s 282 of the Act has been issued to the assessee at his stated address and which notice has not returned back unserved. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has been unable to distinguish the decision of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of I-Ven Technologies (Supra) before us. The issue before us therefore stands squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble apex court in the case, of I-Ven Technologies (Supra) against the assessee. 14. Therefore, we see no reason to find that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was not duly served on the assessee. As a consequence, plea of the assessee that the jurisdiction assumed in the present case to frame assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not in accordance with law is rejected. 15. Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed.

P a g e | 7 ITA No.912/JPR/2025 Bimla Gupta 16. With respect to the addition made of cash found deposited in the bank account of the assessee both the assessment order and the Ld. CIT(A) order are ex parte. The assessee before us has contended that the cash deposited was received by her from her husband and son and affidavit to this effect has now been filed before us. Since the assessee has remained unheard before both the authorities below it is considered fit to restore the issue back to the file of the AO to be considered afresh after considering the evidence and explanation furnished by the assessee. The remaining grounds are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes. 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 = mittaligupta34671@gmail.com C = ITAT, Jaipur IN O = Personal Date: 2026.10.30 12:43:41 +05'30'