SHEETAL BATHLA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) KOTA, KOTA

In response to the said notice, no return of income was filed by the assessee within the time allowed. However, the assessee has filed her return of income on 24.12.2019. Notices under section 142(1) along with query letter were issued on 10.10.2019 and 25.10.2019 through her registered e-mail as well as through registered post, requiring the assessee to furnish the details along with evidences as mentioned in the notices, but no compliance was made to these notices.Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 11.11.2019 was issued to the assessee at her Jaipur address through registered post as well as e-mail Id provided by the assessee’s husband, requiring the assessee to show cause as to why the assessment may not be completed under section 144 of the IT Act, 1961 on the basis of material available on record and Rs. 1,07,49,690/- may not be assessed in the hands of the assessee treating as undisclosed income for the year under consideration as per provisions of the IT Act. No compliance was made by the assessee. A final show cause notice was issued on 19.12.2019 to the assessee and served through her registered e-mail as well as through registered post, requiring the assessee to show cause as to why assessment may not be completed under section 144 of the IT Act, 1961 on the basis of documents/material available on record and Rs. 1,07,49,690/- may not be added in your total income treating as undisclosed income for the year under consideration as per provisions of the IT Act, 1961. In response, the assessee furnished her reply on 23.12.2019along with bank statement, financial ledger, script/item-wise profit & loss transaction etc. and further requested for 2 days time to furnish complete details in respect of amount of Rs. 89,75,000/- credited in her State Bank of India account no. 3007969815 during the FY 2011-12. In her reply, the assessee stated that Rs. 1,13,75,000/- as mentioned in the reasons as credited in her bank account includes a cheque amount of Rs. 24,00,000/- credited on 22.09.2011 which has been dishonored and debited as the said cheque returned on 23.09.2011. The net amount of Rs. 89,75,000/- (Rs. 1,13,75,000 – Rs. 24,00,000) was receipts/transfer of funds from one concern to another sister concern namely “Ace India Medical Systems, Ace India Surgical & Medical Company & Ace India Surgical”. The assessee, in her reply further submitted that interest has been given by associate sister concern have been properly declared in the ITR filed by her.The assessee also furnished return in response to notice under section 148 on 24.12.2019. The AO issued notice under section 143(2) on 26.12.2019 fixing the date of hearing on 27.12.2019. During the assessment proceedings, the AO considered the submissions of the assessee as well as the documents, bank statement etc. but could not find it acceptable. Accordingly, the AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 96,00,310/- by making an addition of Rs. 89,75,000/- treating it as deeming income from other sources on account of unexplained credit in bank account of the assesseeand completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147of the IT Act, 1961 vide his order dated 27.12.2019. The AO has made the addition of Rs. 89,75,000/- without invoking any provisions of the Act. On being aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that despite gettingsix (06) opportunities appellant has failed to submit any documents/proofs/evidences in support of her claim and arguments. In view of non submission of supporting evidences, he upheld the action of the AO.

Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before us on the grounds reproduced herein above.

4. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted his written submissions which are being reproduced hereunder :- “GOA 1 & 3 Invalid action u/s 148 and invalid addition of Rs.89,75,000/- on account of credit and deposit amount in the bank account. FACTS: The brief facts of the case that the assessee is a regular IT assessee. He was having income from other source. She filed her ITR on dt.29.03.2013 declaring the total income of Rs.6,25,316/-. In this case the ld. AO has issued the notice u/s 148 on dt.30.03.2019 on the reason “ the assessee has credited an amount of Rs.1,13,75,000/- in her bank account during the F.Y. 2011-12. The assessee filed her ITR on declaring the total income of Rs.6,25,316/-. She had not filed her Audit Report for the year under consideration despite having bank account credit and debit transaction over and above the monitory limit mandatory requiring to get her accounts audited. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, the sources of funds deposited by the assessee in her bank account are not to treated as explained sources of the assessee. Thus amount of Rs.1,07,49,690/- (11375000-625310) which is to be treated as deeming income from other sources for the year under consideration. “ The notice has not been served upon the assessee. The ld. AO issued the notices u/s 142(1) and required the details but in want of communication gap the assessee could not file the reply. The ld. AO also issued the Show cause notice on dt. 19.12.2019, asking to the assesseee why the addition of Rs.1,07,49,690/- to be treated as deeming income. In response to this notice assessee filed the reply on dt. 23.12.2019 vide page 9 of the assessment order and also filed the return in response to the notice u/s 148 on dt. 24.12.2019. The ld. AO also issued the notice u/s 143(2) on dt.26.12.2019 by giving the date of hearing on 27.12.2019 vide Annexure-1. The ld. AO has not given a very short time against the principal of natural justice and passed the order on the very same date on 27.12.2019 by making the addition of Rs.89,75,000/- by observing as under :- “On perusal of the bank statement of A/c No. - No. 30007969815 with State Bank of India it is found that the cheque of Rs. 24,00,000/-credited on 22.09.2019 has been dishonored and same returned on 23.09.2011. Thus as per bank account statement, net amount of Rs. 89,75,000/-(1,13,75000-24,00,000) was credited in her bank account No. 3007969815 during the F.Y. 2011-12 whereas the assessee has filed her return of income on 29.03.2013 for the A.Y. 2012-13 thereby declaring total income of Rs. 5,25,310/- only. The income declared by the assessee does not commensurate with the transaction of the bank account. During the assessment proceedings the assessee has stated in her written submission dated 23.12.2019 that Rs. 89,75,000/- were received for from one

concern to other sister concern namely “Ace India Medical System, Ace India Surgical & Medical company & Ace India Surgical”. On perusal of copies of accounts of the above concern as furnished by the assessee during the assessment proceedings it is found that the same are unsigned thus, the same cannot be treated as authentic documents. The assessee has also not furnished the confirmed copy of account of the lender along with copy of ITR and relevant bank statement to prove their creditworthiness and the genuineness of transaction, Therefore, creditworthiness of lender and the genuineness of transaction is not proved and has not justified her claim with substantial evidences regarding source of amount of amount of 89,75,000/- credited/ deposited into her bank account during the F.Y. 2011-12, in absence of valid documentary evidences the nature of source of above credited/deposited amount of Rs. 89,75,000/- in her bank account could not be verified. Hence, the nature and source of Rs. 89,75,000/-remained unexplained and unverified. Therefore, 89,75,000/- is treating as deeming income from other source as unexplained bank credits into her bank accounts and the same is to be taxable in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above discussion Rs. 89,75,000/- is added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration i.e. F.Y. 2011-12(A.Y.2012-13)”. Thus the ld. AO has made the addition of Rs.89,75,000/- without invoking any provisions of the Act. In first appeal the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the ld. AO without considering the material and details available in their true perspective and sense. Hence this appeal. SUBMISSIONS: 1. The reasons are wrong and vague:1.1At the very outset it is submitted that the reason recorded by the ld. AO are wrong and vague without any material. As the ld. AO has stated that “the assessee has credited an amount of Rs.1,13,75,000/- in her bank account during the F.Y. 2011-12. The assessee filed her ITR on declaring the total income of Rs.6,25,316/-. She had not filed her Audit Report for the year under consideration despite having bank account credit and debit transaction over and above the monitory limit mandatory requiring to get her accounts audited. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, the sources of funds deposited by the assessee in her bank account are not to treated as explained sources of the assessee. Thus amount of Rs.1,07,49,690/- (11375000-625310) which is to be treated as deeming income from other sources for the year under consideration.

1.2As it is an admitted facts that the assessee has filed the ITR showing interest income as income from other sources which is also appearing from the ITR filed (PB1-2)and also coming in the 26AS(vide Annexure-2 ) both very well available before the ld. AO. Hence the ld. AO has not stated that on what basis in the reasons recorded he has stated that the assessee has not filed the Audit report, when the assessee was not having any business income nor any income for which she was liable to be get her accounts audited, as per the nature and source of income, even she is not liable to maintain the books of accounts. Only having the debit credit entries in the bank account ipso-facto not liable to audit, there may be so many reason or sources of debit and credit in the bank . The ld. AO before recording the reason and before issue the notice u/s 148 has not seen or considered the ITR filed by assessee form 26AS, otherwise the reason would be different. He has not stated that which business was being done by the assessee and which nature of income or transaction was there which make liable to audit. Hence the reasons recorded itself wrong and vague and not notice u/s 148 can be given on wrong, vague and fake reasons and hence the reasons as well as the subsequent proceedings are illegal, invalid void-ab-intion and liable to be quashed. 2.No income escaped: further it is submitted that the notice u/s 148 can be issued only when there is any escapement of income because S.147 provides that If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, here the assessee has not escaped any income because the assessee has not earned income of Rs.89,75,000/- or 1,07,49,690/-, which are loan and out of the same some has been repaid. Which shows that there was no escapement of income by the assessee. Then it cannot be said that there is the escapement of income by the assessee nor proved then the notice issued u/s 148 is invalid.

3. Reason to believe and not reason to suspect: 3.1It is further submitted that even under the amended law by the finance act 1989 the condition precedent or words, which continues right since inception till date, are “reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". The word “believe” has to be understood in contradistinction of suspicion or opinion. Belief indicates something concrete or reliable. Kindly refer Gangasharan& Sons Pvt. Ltd. 130 ITR 1 (SC), and ITO v. LakhmaniMewal Das, (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). 3.2 The belief of the Officer should be as to escapement of income and the belief should not be a product of imagination or speculation. There must be reason to induce the belief. The Court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the Court (SheoNath Singh v. AAC, (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC). As on perusal of the above para 1 it shows that the ld. AO has proceeded on reasons to suspect not reason to believe and failed to understand the scope of audit, a blind observation cannot be used in reasons.

3.3 No application of mined on the information received from DDIT: Further the ld. AO issued Notice u/s 148 dt. 30.03.20192 on the basis of information received by JAO from DDIT(Inv)-III Jaipur for examining source of credits appearing of Rs. 1,13,75,000/- in the Saving bank account maintained in SBI Bank and on perusal of the DDIT information and reasons recorded the ld. AO has not made any inquiry on the information and issued the notice u/s 148 on the same reason as mentioned by the ld. DDIT. As the report of the DDIT was received by the ld. AO on dt.30.03.2019 and on the very same day the ld. AO has recorded the reasons and issued the notice u/s 148, which shows non application of mind on the reasons recorded. Further when in the DDIT report the address of the assessee was given of Jaipur and the ld. AO not sent the notice u/s 148 on the address of the Jaipur and in all the notices the address was of Kota. As the assessee was living in Kota before 2014 and after that she shifted to Jaipur. During the year 2012- 13 assessee received some loan and transaction with her known firms and person. She also took loan against FDRs and repaid. However, assessee has not deposited cash in bank during A.Y 2012-13 3.4 In the case of MukeshModi&Ors. vs. DCIT 366 ITR 418 (Raj) held that Evasion of tax was menace to society but Assessee contributing to the exchequer in form of tax could not be allowed to suffer on mere pretence that it had evaded payment of tax. Rowing and fishing enquiry in hands of AO on mere suspicion or change of opinion could not satisfy expression "reason to believe" exposing Assessee for reopening of assessment. Notice for reopening of assessment was not in consonance and in conformity with under Section 147 and made specified notice vulnerable. High Court pointed that, reasons given by AO for issuance of notice for Re-assessment were not plausible and convincing. In fact order, where objections were rejected by AO, was not self-contained speaking order. Upon perusal of the order, it was amply clear that the same contains conclusions and is bereft of reasons.(para 12) Notices issued to Assessee by AO under Section 147/148 were not satisfying the pre- requisites for same. There was no whisper in the notice, or iota of proof that while issuing same. AO had reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the assessment year. Notice issued by AO simply for his own verification and to clear his doubts and suspicions to re-examine the material which were already available on record at the time of passing of t earlier assessment orders. The legislature under Section 147 has not clothed AO with such jurisdiction therefore the action could not be upheld in the background of facts of instant case. One more redeeming fact which had direct nexus with the subsequent re-assessment proceedings and ramification of the same had culminated into re-assessment orders was the impugned order where AO rejected the objections submitted by Assessees pursuant to notice under Section 147/148. Order passed by AO in this behalf was not a speaking order which could not be sustained. In view of legal infirmity in the notice under Section 147/148 and laconic order of AO while rejecting objections Assessee the consequential assessment Orders were liable to be annulled.(para16)

4.In the case of Abrar Ahmed Qasami v/s ITO Ward 46(5) in ITA 3177/Del/2017 dt. 01.06.2018 it has been held that “7. After considering rival submissions, I am of the view that reopening of the assessment is bad in law. The A.O. merely noted in the reasons that since there is an information available on ITD System of the Department that assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.14,75,000/- in his Bank Account, therefore, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ShriArvindYadav (supra) considering the identical facts held that the deposit in the bank account per se cannot be the income of the assessee. This is a mere suspicion of the A.O. based on incorrect fact that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and accordingly, quashed the reopening of the assessment. The findings of the Tribunal in para 8 of the Order are reproduced as under : “8. In this case the Assessing Officer after obtaining the AIR information wanted to verify the same and issued a letter of enquiry to the assessee. The Assessing Officer thus did not apply his independent mind to the information received from AIR. Since no proceedings were pending before the Assessing Officer when he issued a letter of enquiry to the assessee, therefore, such enquiry letter was not valid in eyes of law. Therefore, the assessee was not required to respond to invalid letter of enquiry issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer in the absence of reply of the assessee presumed that cash deposited in the bank account has escaped assessment. The deposit in the bank account per se cannot be income of the assessee. It is mere suspicion of the Assessing Officer based on incorrect fact that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The issue is therefore covered in favour of assessee by order of ITAT SMC Delhi Bench in the case of Tajendra Kumar Ghai (supra). In view of this matter, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act for the purpose of reopening of the assessment. I accordingly set aside the orders of the authorities below and quash the reopening of the assessment in the matter. Resultantly, the addition made in the reassessment would stand deleted. 5.As recently this Honble ITAT in the case of Suresh Kumar Saini v/s ITO Ward 7(4), Jaipur in dt.29.01.2025 has decided the legal grounds of appeal even not decided by the ld. CIT(A). Copy is enclosed. Hence in view of the above submissions the action taken u/s 148 and consequent proceedings may kindly be quashed.

6. No provisions has been applied by the ld. AO:6.1 Further it is submitted that the ld. AO made the additions on account of alleged credited/deposit in the bank account. However while making the additionshe has not invoked or applied any provisions of law while making the addition. The ld. AO has not stated under what provision of law he has made the addition and under what head whether, under business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain or u/s 48, 56 or u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against the law and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any provision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition. When in the law and in the Act for each and every offence specific provisions are given to held any person as victim defaulter, then without applying any provision for that a person cannot be taxed and penalized. When the ld. AO himself has not stated that under what provision the assessee liable to be taxed or penalized or under what provision his offence falls then how the addition can be made. 6.2 On this preposition we also would like to draw your kind attention toward the recent decision of this Honble ITAT in the case of Arvind Kumar NehraV/s ITO Ward 7(1), Jaipur 32/Jp/2024dt10.04.2024 where it has been held “It is also noteworthy to mention from the entire conspectus of the case that the AO has also not invoked any provisions of IT Act while making the lump Sum addition of Rs.50,00,000/- for cash deposits in the bank account during the Demonetization Period, Unsecured Loan & capital introduced. Hence, in our view lump-sum addition cannot be made under these accounts. The AO must have referred the specific amount with specific details and documents which he has not provided and as to what basis lump sum addition has been made and also failed to mention that on which account and as to what amount of addition consists of. It is also noted that the AO has not stated under which provisions or section he has made the lump-sum addition either u/s 68 or 69 or 69A or trading or u/s 56 i.e. other sources. It may be worthwhile to mention that when in the Act for every additions, the provisions or section has been provided by the legislature, otherwise there shall be no meaning of the Act. Hence the addition is wrongly made against the Act . (vide page 21-22 of the order).” 6.3The same has also been held recently in the case of Rajendra Kumar Meena v/s ITO Swaimodhopur in dt. 25.07.2024. 6.4 In the case of M/S. Pasari Casting And Rolling Mills ... vs Income-Tax Department Through Its ... on 25 January, 2024 in W.P. (T) No. 1850/2022 dt. 25.01.2024 where it has been held that “ Furthermore, the recorded reason is also silent under which provision of the Act the additions are sought to be made i.e. whether Section 68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief of any accommodation entry. (Refer PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas P. Ltd. reported in [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Del). 6.5 In the case of Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the show cause notice should give the noticee a reasonable opportunity of making objections against proposed charges indicated in the notice and the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can make his defense and prove his innocence. In the entire course of the proceeding, at no stage the Petitioner is made aware of the provisions of law which have been contravened and/or under which the additions are sought to be made which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure adopted by the Department is not fair or proper. In the case of New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in [2020] 424 ITR 607 (SC), it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Assessee must be put to notice of all the provisions on which the Department relies. 6.6 Recently the same has also been laid down by this honble ITAT in the case of M/s Kajari Mineral Pvt. Ltd v/s DCIT Central Circle-1 Udaipur in and 218/Jodh/2024 dt.21.11.2024 and also in Smt. Prabhati Devi v/s ITO Ward Dausa in dt. 01.10.2024. Copy is enclosed. 6.7 Recently the Honble ITAT in the case of AshianaBuildpropPvt. Ltd., , Udaipur. Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur in to 709/Jodh/2024 dt. 26.05.2025 it has been held . “8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. Upon consideration of the facts and material available on record, we are in agreement with the contentions of the ld. AR that while making the additions, the Assessing Officer has not invoked any provisions of the Act, which is clearly apparent from the assessment order itself, as also from the Show Cause Notice dated 24.11.2017 available at PB 59-70 and the ld. D/R has also admitted the same that is why he has filed the Written submission on this. In support of his case, the ld. A/R has drawn our attention to the various judgments of Honble Supreme Court, High Courts and the coordinate benches of the Tribunal, Jodhpur and Jaipur as under :- i) ii) iii) iv) Arvind Kumar Nehra V/s ITO Ward 7(1), Jaipur 32/Jp/2024 dt 10.04.2024 Rajendra Kumar Meena v/s ITO Swaimodhopur in ITA No.516/Jp/2024 dt. 2507.2024. M/S. Pasari Casting And Rolling Mills ... vs Income-Tax Department Through Its ... on 25 January, 2024 in W.P. (T) No. 1850/2022 dt. 25.01.2024 Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 85 ITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024 AshianaBuildpropPvt. Ltd., Udaipur. v) vi) New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs. DCIT (SC) reported in [2020] 424 ITR 607 M/s Kajari Mineral Pvt. Ltd v/s DCIT Central Circle-1 Udaipur in ITA No. 217 and 218/Jodh/2024 dt.21.11.2024 and also in Smt. Prabhati Devi v/s ITO Ward Dausa in ITA No. 1031/Jp/2024 dt. 01.10.2024. Further, the case laws referred by the ld. D/R is not applicable in the present case and are fully distinguishable, the mater cannot be sent back to the AO for fresh assessment where there is legal issue involved, the same may be sent if the assessment has been made ex-party and if any additional evidence is filed on the merit and facts were not before the AO, as on the legality, there is no requirement to examine the facts when no new material and evidence filed and how for invoking the provisions an assessment can be sent for fresh assessment, the Tribunal cannot rectify the legal mistake committed by the AO and cannot give fresh innings only to invoke the provision for making the addition and rectify the legally which is committed by him.

9. Taking into consideration the judicial pronouncements mentioned herein above, we are of the view that additions cannot be made without invoking any provisions of the Act. The AO should have referred or stated under which provisions or section he has made the addition either u/s 68 or 69 or 69A or trading or u/s 56 i.e. other sources. It may be worthwhile to mention that when in the Act for every addition, the provisions or section has been provided by the legislature, otherwise there shall be no meaning of the Act. Hence the addition is wrongly made against the Act. Thus the additions made are deleted.” Here also the same position hence looking to the above facts and legal position the additions may kindly be deleted in full and oblige. 7.The assessee has taken credit entries during the year as under 1. Cash deposit of self 25000/- 2. Surgical Company, Prop.SurendraBathla, Father In law ABLPB9150G 1300000/- 3. Sheela Rani Bathla (Mother-in law)PAN ABWPB7649D 900000/- 4. M. S. Surgical Company (Husband Friend) AWJPS8840D 5700000/- 5. LuckuBathla ( Husband) ABWPB8251H 1050000/- Total 89,75,000/- The ld. AO has not considered the material available in their true perspective and sense. As all the person are IT assessee. In support we are enclosing herewith their confirmations, bank ITR etc. (PB8-72), these are additional evidence which may kindly be admitted U/r 29A, as assessee has received the Show Cause Notice 19.12.2019 and no sufficient time was given by the ld. AO. Assessee has also repaid most of the amount in the later years. All the transactions are genuine, persons are identified and having creditworthiness. Hence in view of the facts, submissions and legal position the additions so made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted in full.”

4.1 In support of the above submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted the paper book index as under :-

PAPER BOOK INDEX S. No. Particulars. Page No.

5. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the order of the ld. CIT (A) be sustained.

“ 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. Upon consideration of the facts and material available on record, we are in agreement with the contentions of the ld. A/R that while making the additions, the Assessing Officer has not invoked any provisions of the Act, which is clearly apparent from the assessment order itself, as also from the Show Cause Notice dated 24.11.2017 available at PB 59- 70 and the ld. D/R has also admitted the same that is why he has filed the Written submission on this. In support of his case, the ld. A/R has drawn our attention to the various judgments of Honble Supreme Court, High Courts and the coordinate benches of the Tribunal, Jodhpur and Jaipur as under : i) Arvind Kumar Nehra V/s ITO Ward 7(1), Jaipur 32/Jp/2024 dt 10.04.2024 ii) Rajendra Kumar Meena v/s ITO Swaimodhopur in dt. 2507.2024. iii) M/S. Pasari Casting And Rolling Mills ... vs Income-Tax Department Through Its ... on 25 January, 2024 in W.P. (T) No. 1850/2022 dt. 25.01.2024 iv) Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. v) New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in [2020] 424 ITR 607 (SC) vi) M/s Kajari Mineral Pvt. Ltd v/s DCIT Central Circle-1 Udaipur in and 218/Jodh/2024 dt.21.11.2024 and also in Smt. Prabhati Devi v/s ITO Ward Dausa in dt. 01.10.2024.

Further, the case laws referred by the ld. D/R is not applicable in the present case and are fully distinguishable, the mater cannot be sent back to the AO for fresh assessment where there is legal issue involved, the same may be sent if the assessment has been made ex-party and if any additional evidence is filed on the merit and facts were not before the AO, as on the legality, there is no requirement to examine the facts when no new material and evidence filed and how for invoking the provisions an assessment can be sent for fresh assessment, the Tribunal cannot rectify the legal mistake committed by the AO and cannot give fresh innings only to invoke the provision for making the addition and rectify the legally which is committed by him.

Therefore, in view of the above findings, and taking into consideration the judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and the decisions of the Tribunal considered by the Coordinate Bench, we are of the view that the addition cannot be made without invoking any provisions of the Act. Thus, the addition made is hereby deleted.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 17/11/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Sheetal Bathla, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(2), Kota. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत