RAJU LAL JALTHANIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1146/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10

Raju Lal Jalthaniya
36-B, Raghunath Vihar Colony,
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AUZPJ8978R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Ashish Goyal, C.A.
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 09/10/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 11/11/2025

vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

By way of the present appeal, the assessee – appellant challenges the findings of the National Faceless Appeal Centre,
Delhi [ for short “CIT(A)] recorded in the order passed as per provision of section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [ for short Act
] dated 11.06.2025 for the assessment year 2009-10. Ld. CIT(A) passed that order because the assessee had challenged assessment order dated 16.11.2016 passed under section 148/144
of the Act by ITO, Ward-(3)3), Jaipur [ for short AO] before him.
Raju Lal Jalthaniya, Jaipur.
2
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -
“1. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well in facts of the case is setting aside the assessment overlooking that remand report was already on record wherein majority of issues were addressed in favour of appellant.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well in facts of the case is setting aside the assessment as a matter of course by relying upon amendment in section 251 by finance Act, 2024, without appreciating that it was not obligatory on part of CIT(A) to set aside every order u/s 144 as the legislatures used “May Set Aside”.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well in facts of the case is observing non allowance of deduction u/s 54B of the Act to the tune of Rs. 2,95,220/- solely owning to investment in the named spouse.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well in facts of the case is delaying appellate proceedings to the detriment of appellant, in as much set aside order was passed after lag of almost 5 years after receipt of remand report.
5. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of his appeal.”