MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, 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. 581/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13
Ward-2(2),
Jaipur.
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ATDPK4509Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv.
jktLo dh vksjls@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: 03/11/2025

vkns'k@ORDER

PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A),
National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 04.10.2023 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

2
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

“1.1 The impugned order u/s 147 rws 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 04.12.2019 as well as the notice u/s 148 and action or proceedings u/s 147/148 are illegal, bad in law, barred by limitation, without juri iction, without approval/satisfaction from the proper or competent authority, against the principle of natural justice and various other reasons or and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence the same may kindly be quashed.

3
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

“AFFIDAVIT

I, Maya Kumari W/o Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Aged years, R/o 167,
Om Shiv Colony Shyam Marg Jhotwara Jaipur Rajasthan 302012 do hereby solemnly affirm on oath as under :

4
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

Place : Jaipur Date : 14.04.2025

Maya Kumari

( Deponent )

VERIFICATION

I, Maya Kumari W/o Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Aged years, R/o
167, Om Shiv Colony Shyam Marg Jhotwara Jaipur Rajasthan 302012, do hereby verified that the contentions of above para 1 to 8 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, nothing has been concealed. God may help me.

Place : Jaipur Date : 14.04.2025
5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual. The assessee is engaged in tuition & stitching work and share trading. As per information available in ITS data and information received through NMS that the assessee has made commodity transactions of Rs. 1,25,80,56,680/- on Multi Commodity

5
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

Exchange. The assessee has not filed her Return of Income for the year under consideration, hence the amount of transactions made by the assessee could not be verified. Therefore, the AO (ITO Ward 3(1) Jaipur) after recording reasons and taking prior approval from the competent authority, notice under section 148 was issued on 29.03.2019 requiring the assessee to submit Return of Income within 30
days from the service of notice. In response to the said notice, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Notices under section 142(1) along with query letter were issued on 26.08.2019, 28.09.2019 and 25.10.2019,but no compliance was made. Subsequently the case was transferred from ITO Ward 3(4) Jaipur to the ITO Ward 2(2) Jaipur under section 127 of the Act by order issued by the Pr.CIT-
1, Jaipur. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) was issued on 09.11.2019 along with the show cause under section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 fixing the case for hearing on 18.11.2019, which was served upon the assessee by hand. In response, the assessee has uploaded written submissions and copy of bank statements vide letter dated 23.11.2019 stating that the assessee was not having any demat account at present so no information was available regarding the transactions. In the meanwhile, information under section 133(6) was called from the Multi
Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. and on receipt of the Report dated 13.09.2019
from the MCX, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee has suffered a loss of 6
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

Rs. 6,99,273/-. The AO, therefore, required the assessee to furnish the details and source of payments of loss suffered along with documentary evidence. Since the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the loss suffered, the AO treating the unexplained payment of loss of Rs. 6,99,273/-,made the addition of Rs.
6,99,273/- under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961 and completed the assessment under section 147/144 of the IT Act, 1961 vide his order dated 04.12.2019. 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 even after giving
12
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.
6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before us on the grounds reproduced herein above. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee submitted his written submissions which are being reproduced hereunder
:-

“ GOA-1: Invalid action u/s 147/148 and invalid assessment:
GOA-2: Addition of Rs.6,99,273/-U/S 69 on account of alleged unexplained sources for payment of losses:
FACTS: The facts of the case is that the assessee is a regular IT assessee. She is having income other sources (tuition&Stitching) work and shares income loss. She not filed her
ROI on being no taxable income. The ld. AO has issued the notice u/s 148 on dt.29.03.2019on the reasons that “ As per Information available on ITS data and 7
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

information has been received through NMS that the assessee has made commodity transaction of Rs.1,25,80,56,680/- on Multi Commodity Exchange. And assessee has not filed his ROI . Hence the amount of transaction made by the assessee was not verifiable and the taxability of the said amount could not be ascertained. “
This not served upon the assessee. As per record the notice was issued by the ITO Ward
3(4), Jaipur and the assessment was completed by the ITO ward 2(2) Jaipur.
The ld. AO has issued the notices but in want of knowledge of the assessee earlier she could not file the reply. The ld. AO called the information from Multi Commodity
Exchange of India and the ld. AO stated that on perusal of the report of MCX you have suffered with a loss of Rs.6,99,273/-, hence you are required to furnish the details and source of payment of loss suffered and why the addition of Rs.6,99,273/- will be added u/s 69 as unexplained investment in shares.
In response to this notice assesee has filed the reply dt. 23.11.20219(PB3-4), where she has stated that she is not having any demate a/c at present so no information is available in this regard. Assessee also submitted the bank statement (PB5-7). In this letter the ld. AO filed the details and sources of funds, which have been ignored by the ld.
AO and the ld. AO wrongly alleged and held that the assessee has not provided any details regarding the payment of loss, hence the source of amount to Rs.6,99,273/- will be made u/s 69 and added to the total income of the assessee.
Against which assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in want of any response from the assessee, while deciding the appeal the ld. CIT(A) has followed the assessment order and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal.
SUBMISSIONS:
1. No addition made on the reasons recorded u/s 148: At the very outset it is submitted that as the ld. AO issued the notice u/s 148 on the reasons recorded that““ As per
Information available on ITS data and information has been received through NMS that the assessee has made commodity transaction of Rs.1,25,80,56,680/- on Multi
Commodity Exchange. And assessee has not filed his ROI. Hence the amount of transaction made by the assessee was not verifiable and the taxability of the said amount could not be ascertained. “
However on perusal of the assessment order admittedly it has been come to know that the ld. AO has not made any addition on this issue or on the issue recorded in the reason for reopening the case and he has made different addition on account of unexplained

8
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

investment u/s 69 for payment of losses., which is illegal and now it is the settled legal position of law that if no addition on the reasons recorded has been made then no other addition can be made, for this kindly refer following decisions:
(a) In the case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh306 ITR 0343(Raj.)the Hon’ble High Court Of Rajasthan Held that It is only when, in proceedings under s. 147 the AO assesses or reassesses any income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment for any assessment year, with respect to which he had "reason to believe" to be so, then only, in addition, he can also put to tax, the other income, chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, and which has come to his notice subsequently, in the course of proceedings under s. 147. To put it in other words, if in the course of proceedings under s. 147, the AO were to come to conclusion, that any income chargeable to tax, which, according to his "reason to believe", had escaped assessment for any assessment year, did not escape assessment, then, the mere fact, that the AO entertained a reason to believe, albeit even a genuine reason to believe, would not continue to vest him with the juri iction, to subject to tax, any other income, chargeable to tax, which the AO may find to have escaped assessment, and which may come to his notice subsequently, in the course of proceedings under s. 147. It is a different story that for such other income, the AO may have recourse to such other remedies, as may be available to him under law, but then, once it is found, that the income, regarding which he had "reason to believe" to have escaped assessment, is not found to have escaped assessment, the AO is required to withhold his hands, at that only. Once the AO came to the conclusion, that the income, with respect to which he had entertained "reason to believe" to have escaped assessment, was found to have been explained, his juri iction came to a stop at that, and he did not continue to possess juri iction, to put to tax, any other income, which subsequently came to his notice, in the course of reassessment proceedings, which were found by him, to have escaped assessment.—CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H) concurred with.
(b) In the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) LTD331ITR 0236(Bom):Held Reassessment—
Scope—Items unconnected with escapement for which notice was issued—When Expln. 3
to s. 147 was introduced, Parliament stepped in to correct what it regarded as an interpretational error in the view which was taken by certain Courts that the AO has to restrict the assessment or reassessment proceedings only to the issues in respect of which reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment—However, Expln. 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of s. 147—AO has to assess or reassess the income ("such income") which escaped assessment and which was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings—However, if after issuing a notice under s. 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other income—If he intends to do so, a fresh notice under s. 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee

9
though the reasons for such issue were not included in the reasons recorded in the notice under s. 148(2) on the basis of which he had initiated proceedings under s. 147.—
VipanKhanna vs. CIT (2002) 175 CTR (P&H) 335 : (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H) and Travancore Cements Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2008) 219 CTR (Ker) 359 : (2008) 305 ITR 170
(Ker) held no longer good law.
The heading of s. 147 is "Income escaping assessment" and that of s. 148 "Issue of notice where income escaped assessment". Sec. 148 is supplementary and complimentary to s.
147. Sub-s. (2) of s. 148 mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the AO and sub-s. (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee before the AO proceeds to assess, reassess or recomputed escaped income. Sec. 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the AO that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. All these conditions are required to be fulfilled to assess or reassess the escaped income chargeable to tax. As per Expln. 3 if during the course of these proceedings the AO comes to conclusion that some items have escaped assessment, then notwithstanding that those items were not included in the reasons to believe as recorded for initiation of the proceedings and the notice, he would be competent to make assessment of those items.
However, the legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to the AO that on assuming juri iction under s. 147 regarding assessment or reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed juri iction. For every new issue coming before AO during the course of proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped income, and which he intends to take into account, he would be required to issue a fresh notice under s. 148.—
CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 239 CTR (Bom) 183 : (2011) 52 DTR (Bom) 71 :
(2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) concurred with.
The very basis of initiation of proceedings for which reasons to believe were recorded were income escaping assessment in respect of items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., but the same having not been done, the AO proceeded to reduce the claim of deduction

10
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

under ss. 80HH and 80-I which as per above discussion was not permissible. Had the AO proceeded to make disallowance in respect of the items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., then in view of the discussion as above, he would have been justified as per Expln. 3
to reduce the claim of deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I as well. In view of the above discussions, the Tribunal was right in holding that the AO had the juri iction to reassess issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings are initiated but he was not so justified when the reasons for the initiation of those proceedings ceased to survive.
(d) In the case of CIT vs. Dr.DevendraGupta336 ITR 0059(Raj): held Reassessment—
Scope—Addition in respect of items other than the one on which notice in given—
Income alleged to have escaped assessment in reasons recorded not having been actually found to .
(e) Also refer AVG Construction Pvt. Ltd v/s ITO Ward 6(2) Jaipur in ITA no.
90/Jp/2020 dt. 02.09.2021 under the same facts and circumstances copy is enclosed.
(f) Recently the Honble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of ShriShambhuDayalSaraf v/s
IT in ITA No. 558/Jp/2013 dt02.07.2018 58 TW 355(Jp), has also held the same view copy of order is enclosed
(g) Also refer latest decision of this Honble ITAT in the case of PappuQureshi v/s ITO in ITA No. 314//Jp/2019 dt. 28.04.2020
Sec. 292B is no applicable: S. 292B could not be invoked to correct a foundational/substantial error as it was meant so as to meet juri ictional requirement—
Therefore, both impugned notice and impugned order were quashed and set aside—It was made clear that this order would not prohibit Revenue from issuing a fresh notice for reassessment, if requirement of Ss 147/148 were satisfied, including limitation period therein Kindly refer SumitBalkrishan Gupta v/s ACIT 104 CCH379(Bom.HC)(2019).

Thus, cannot be said that it is an irregularity curable u/s. 292B—
(h)In the case of SarafGramodyogSansthan vs. ITO108 ITD 115(Agra)it has been held that Further, AO had referred to wrong bank account number in the reasons recorded by him—Sec. 292B cannot take care of any mistake in recording the reasons because that section refers to "return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings"—
It does not refer to the reasons recorded by the AO—Any invalid proceedings for assumption of juri iction cannot be corrected by s. 292B
(i) In the case of Vikram Singh vs. Income Tax Officer (2021) 63 CCH 0044
LucknowTrib. Reassessment—Escapement of income—Case of assessee was reopened u/s. 147 for deposits in bank amounting Rs.11,00,000—Held, Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 has held that sec. 147 has this effect that AO has to assess or reassess income ("such income") which escaped assessment and which 11
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

was basis of formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which, comes to his notice during course of proceedings—However, if after issuing a notice under s. 148, he accepted contention of assessee and holds that income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income—If he intends to do so, a fresh notice under s. 148 would be necessary, legality of which would be tested in event of a challenge by assessee—In view of above facts and circumstances and in view of judicial precedent—Assessee’s ground allowed.
(j) In the case of CIT(EXEMPTION) vs. B.P. Poddar Foundation For EducationSep 13,
2022 (2022) 115 CCH 0026 KolHCReassessment—Reopening of assessment—Assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of Rs. NIL—Return was processed under Section 143 (1—A survey was conducted from which it was found that assessee has deposited money with NIL—It was further seen that said company is a specified person of assessee—According to Assessing Officer, assessee is hit by Section 13(1)(c)(ii) and Section 13(1)(d) for such reason assessment was reopened under Section 147—Assessing
Officer observed that from impugned documents it was seen that assessee had deposited sums with N and both these companies are specified persons of assessee—Therefore,
Assessing Officer held that these amounts are to be taxed separately at Maximum
Marginal Rate in terms of proviso to Section 164(2)—Total amount was treated as income by invoking Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 11(5)—Amount said to have received as donation was added back to income of assessee under Section 69A—CIT(A) affirmed view taken by Assessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with regard to claim for carry forward of depreciation etc—Tribunal after taking note of factual position, more particularly, that addition which was made in reassessment proceedings having been deleted by CIT(A) reassessment on heads which were not part of reasons recorded for reopening assessment is not sustainable—Held, in case of GKN
Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer and Ors., (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) it was held that assessing officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time and noticee is entitled to file their objection to such notice and assessing officer is bound to dispose of same by passing a speaking order—Though Explanation 3 inserted by amendment empowers assessing officer to assess income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment when such issue comes to his notice subsequently in course of proceedings under Section 147 notwithstanding that reasons for such issue have not been included in reasons recorded under Sub-Section 2 of Section 148, prerequisite is there should be a valid notice—Admittedly, in case on hand, notice was held to be not sustainable—If that be so, assessing officer cannot be stated to be empowered to make a roving enquiry into other issues which according to him came to his notice during reassessment proceedings—Foundation of a reassessment proceeding is a valid notice and if this notice is held to be invalid entire edifice sought to be raised on such foundation has to collapse—Tribunal was right in granting relief to assessee—Revenue’s appeal dismissed.

12
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

(k)In the case of Satyawan vs. ITO ITA No. 3423/Del/2019 Jun 20, 2022 (2022) 65 CCH
0217 DelTribReassessment—Reopening of assessment—Assessee is challenging very validity of assessment made by Assessing Officer as assessment was reopened for escapement of income on account of cash deposits made into bank account by assessee and whereas while completing assessment Assessing Officer made various disallowances of expenses other than reason for which assessment was reopened—Held, a plain reading of reasons recorded Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income of assessee has escaped assessment in respect of cash deposits of Rs.68,68,705/- as they were remained unexplained—However, while completing assessment Assessing Officer disallowed 25%
of purchases for want of bills and vouchers—Assessing Officer also disallowed opening capital shown by assessee in his capital account as no explanation was offered by assessee—There is one more addition which was made by assessee is in respect of license fee paid by assessee for want of supporting documents—Other than these three additions there is no other addition or disallowance made by Assessing Officer, which relates to cash deposits by assessee made into his bank account—In other words, Assessing Officer did not make any addition for which assessment was reopened—In case of Ranbaxy
Laboratories Limited Vs. CIT (ITA. No. 148/2008) Delhi High Court held that if Assessing Officer does not make any addition on primary ground on basis of which proceedings under Section 147 were initiated he cannot make other additions—Ratio of decision of Delhi High Court squarely applies to facts of case since Assessing Officer did not make any addition for which reopening was made—Assessing Officer made various other additions other than addition for which assessment was reopened—In view of above, respectfully following above decision of juri ictional High Court, reassessment order passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 is bad in law—Assessee’s grounds allowed.
Under the same facts and circumstances this Honble ITAT in the case of PradeepKuamr v/s ITO Ward-2, Jhujhunu in ITA No. 370/Jp/2022 dt.11.01.2023 has quashed the assessment.

13
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

family and this amounts to a proper service on assessee. These facts are admitted by the department which are evidenced by the remand report and field correspondence mentioned above. Assessee’s contention that Said VedPrakash was neither s his employee nor his authorized agent, remains uncontroverted. Merely because he appeared in some other group entities will not detract the fact that notice was not served on assessee.
During the course of reassessment AO was intimated about non service of notices u/s 148
and 143(2) but AO failed to take cognizance of assessee’s intimation and objections.
From the assessment record, remand reports, field correspondence and oral contentions, department could not demonstrate before us that notice u/s 148 was served on the assessee for A.Y. 2001-02. In the absence of a valid service of notice u/s 148 on the assessee the reassessment proceedings for AY2001-02 are bad in law, consequently they are quashed. Affirmed by theDelhi High Court 382 ITR 613 (Del.) CIT vs. Hotline
International Pvt. Ltd 296 ITR 333 (Del); Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC), followed.
The same contention is favoured by many land mark judgment which are as follows;
Honorable ITAT, Agra Bench in M/s K.P. Cold Storage Vs ITO ITA No. 145/Agra/2018
had held that; In the present case AO on basis of information received from the ADIT(Inv.) that there were huge cash deposits in the bank accounts maintained by assessee during the period F.Y 2008-09, had issued notice under section 148 which culminated into assessment framed determining total income at Rs. 2,21,60,400/- as against Rs.12,45,390/- originally returned by assessee. Assessee contended that no notice under section 148 was served upon assessee and ex-parte assessment was completed without serving any notice under section 148 till the completion of assessment which rendered the assessment order to be held void-ab-initio. It was held a valid service of a valid notice under section 148, is not a mere procedural requirement, but is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment, reassessment or re-computation to be made under section 147 and it is so because of the use of words “shall serve on the assessee”
and also the requirement to the effect “before making the assessment, reassessment or re- computation under section 147” in the section itself- meaning thereby that if no notice under section 148 is issued or if the notice so issued is shown to be invalid, or the service of notice so issued, is shown to be invalid,AO could not proceed with the subsequent proceedings for making assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147. Unless, the notice was served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under section 282, the service was insufficient and AO did not have juri iction to re-assess the escaped income. Thus, the service of notice under section 148 was no service in the eye of law and all subsequent proceedings including the ex parte assessment framed on 21.12.2016 in assessee’s case were illegal and void ab initio.
[1999] 238 ITR 694 (CAL.) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Keshab Narayan Banerjee;
Section 148, read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping

14
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

assessment – Issue of notice for – Assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88 – Whether service of notice is condition precedent for passing orders under section 147 – Held, yes –
Whether respondent made attempt to serve notice under section 148 to appellant by registered post but it was not shown that either appellant refused to take service of notice or that appellant was not available at his residence or that there was no one willing to accept service on his behalf, service of notice could not be said to be properly effected and, therefore, assessment order passed u/s 147 based on service was also bad in law –
Held, yes (In favor of assesee).
We also would like to submit your honor that if there is any issue regarding the service of notice the ld. DR may kindly be directed to produce the assessment record and report of service of notice on the assessee, order sheet and reasons recorded.
Therefore under these facts , circumstances legal position the additions so made may kindly be deleted in full and oblige.

15
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

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)
5. Approval of 52/202assessee;s in one letter illegal: Further the ld. Pr. CIT/JCIT has given one consolidated approval of 200assessee’s through one letter dt. 29.03.2019 vide
Anexure-A page 2-4 and this show how the Pr. CIT/JCIT has acted in formal way. On inspection or perusal of the assessment record and documents on dt. 08.10.2025 it is found that the approval was not in original letter or documents. The document of approval was in the photocopy. How the approval of all the 52/202 different assessee’s can be given in one documents, when all are the independent or separate assessee and reasons are different.He has given one consolidated approval of 52/202 different assessee’s in one shot through one letter dated 29.03.2019 which is even not signed by him but signed by ITO (T&J), who is not a competent authority to give and signed the approval letter, which shows how the PR. CIT has acted in very formal way. When we examined of the assessment record, it isalso gathered that the approval was in photocopy and not in original or there was no original letter or documents of approval. Further the name of the assessee was at Sr.180 out of 202assessee's and even there was no tick on the name of the assessee in the approval list, which creates a doubt that the approval has been received before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act as the approval letter . Thus it all shows how the wrong and illegal manner has been adopted by all the authorities. On this preposition and issue kindly refer the decision of this Honble ITAT in the case of Sh.
SatyaNarayaBairwa v/s ITO in ITA No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 dt. 15.09.2021 Copy is enclosed, wherein under the same facts and circumstances the Honble ITAT has held that “20. The ld. A/R has also drawn our attention on the approval of the Pr. CIT placed at page Nos. 7-8 of the paper book and also from the assessment record placed before us, we found that he has given one consolidated approval of 56
different assessee’s in one shot through one letter dated 29.03.2016 which is even not signed by him but signed by ITO (T&J), who is not a competent authority to give and signed the approval letter, which shows how the PR. CIT has acted in very formal way. When we examined of the assessment record, it is gathered that the approval was in photocopy and not in original or there was no original letter or documents of approval. Further the name of the assessee was at Sr. 46 out of 56 assessee's and even there was no tick on the name of the assessee in the approval list, which creates a doubt that the approval has been received before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act as the approval letter lying on the file after issuance of the notice u/s 148 or not before or attached with the notice u/s 148

16
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

and may reach in the office of the AO after 31.03.2016. Thus, in our view, approval u/s 151 cannot be given of all the 56 assessee's in a single documents, as all assessee's are the independent and separate also the reason recorded are different in each case and it is not possible that there shall be same reasons.
Looking to these facts and record it is also held that the procedures and way of approval and satisfaction is not proper. Here AO initiated proceedings u/s. 147
r.w.s. 148 on basis of information furnished and CIT gave approval without applying his mind in slipshod manner. As approval/sanction given by CIT was without recording his own independent satisfaction as noted above, therefore the reopening was not sustainable as per above judicial pronouncements and irregularities noted. There were clear irregularities and violation of the provision of Sec. 151 of the Act and very foundation of the issuance of the notice u/s 148
was not as per law. Then in that eventuality, we are of the view that the issuance notice 148 of the Act and all the consequent proceedings and assessment order passed was not in accordance with law. The case laws relied upon by the ld. DR are not tenable in the facts and circumstances of present case, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case as well as the judicial pronouncements qua the issue under consideration, we find merit in the contention of the ld AR, therefore, we quash the proceedings U/s 147 of the Act.”

The same has also been followed by this Honble bench in the case of case of Prabhati
Devi vs. ITO Ward Dausa in ITA No. 1031/JPR/2024 dated 01.10.2024 considering the decision in the case of ShriSatya Narayan Bairwa vs. ITO (supra), quashed the proceedings under section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 by observing in page 20 of its order
And these have also been followed by the Honble in the case of Recently in the case of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jhunjhunu in ITA No.
1179/Jp/2024 dt.03.06.2025. Here is the same position.

Therefore under these facts , circumstances legal position the additions so made may kindly be deleted in full and oblige.
On merit we have to submit that:
1.Correct facts and evidences has not been considered: As the assessee was not a regular
IT assessee and the income tax matter was being looked by her husband namely late Sh.
Manoj Kumar Yadav Who has expired on dt.25.05.2022. The transactions on MCX was also done by her husband in the name of assessee. As in this commodity transaction there was a loss of Rs.6,99,273/- as per the ld. AO. On being asked to the sources of payment assessee has through her letter dt. 23.11.2019(PB3-4) has clearly explained the sources by stating that she was having Opening cash balance of Rs.2,20,000/- earned net income of Rs.1,10,000/- during the year and having borrowing from parties during the year.

17
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

Thus she was having the funds to the extent of Rs.11,30,000/- out of this she has paid
Rs.6,99,273/-. In support assessee also filed the bank statement (PB5-7). On perusal of the bank statement it is clear that the borrowing were through the banking channel not incash and after receiving the borrowed amount paid for MCX vide bank statements.
Despite all of these the ld.AO has wrongly alleged and held that the assessee has not provided any details regarding the payment of loss. On perusal of the order of the ld. AO it is clear that the ld. AO has not speak a single word on the sources stated by the assessee. And without rebutting the evidences and material how the ld. AO can make the blind addition. There is no finding of the ld. AO that the borrowing is bogus the sources explained by the assessee is not correct, in absence of such finding no addition can be made.
Further assessee is being a widow lady and was depended upon her husband who did these transaction, despite these she provided the details which were available with her.
And being a very old matter further details is out of reach of the assessee. But the ld. AO has failed to consider the vital material and evidencesproduced by assessee.
We would like to draw your kind attention on the decision of Honble ITAT in the case of Smt. Anjna Sharma v/s ITO in ITA No. 1214/Jp/2019 dt.25.11.2021. As it is also in general that a female lady may save this amount in her married life easily.
The observation of the lower authorities based without any material and evidences. The lower authorities has not rebutted the evidences and reply filed by the assessee by brining any contrary evidence except the suspicion and presumption. Thus the observation based on assumption, presumption and suspicion and his own guess workand it is the settled legal position of law that suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principleskindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR
56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar
BuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law.
Therefore under these facts, circumstances legal position the additions so made may kindly be deleted in full and oblige.”
6.1
In support of the above submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted the paper book index as under :-
PAPER BOOK INDEX

18
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

S. No.
Particulars.
Page No.
1. Copy of Notice u/s 148 and E-order sheet.
1-2
2. Copy of Reply to AO.
3-4
3. Copy of Bank Statements
5-7

Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. AR has claimed vide his submissions dated
23.11.2019 that source of such payment of Rs. 6,99,273/- was provided (APB 3-4) but the ld. AO did not speak any word about such submissions. He has claimed that the appellant was having an opening cash balance of Rs. 2,20,000/- and she had earned Rs. 1,10,000/- as net income from her job and she had also received Rs.
8,00,000/- as loan through account payee cheques and hence the appellant had a total amount of Rs. 11,30,000/- with her out of which she paid the loss incurred by her in commodities trading. The amount of loss had been paid to the broker of Multi Commodity Exchange through bank transfer only. Hence the source of payment of loss of Rs. 6,99,273/- stands proved and we therefore delete the addition so made by ld. AO.
9. Since we have deleted the only addition made by ld.AO in the assessment, we do not deem it fit to decide other grounds of appeal.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03/11/2025. 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:- 03/11/2025
*Santosh

20
Maya Kumari, Jaipur.

आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Maya Kumari, Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-2(2), Jaipur.

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत