ISHAN ARORA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

6. That the enhancement of interest u/s 234A by order u/s 154 without issuing notice or hearing opportunity is arbitrary and unjustified.

7. That the appellant was eligible for presumptive taxation under section 44AF and not required to maintain books or get audit done, having turnover below Rs.40 lakhs.

8. That the order passed is illegal, unjust, and contrary to the facts and law, and liable to be quashed.”

3. Brief Facts of the case are that in this case, notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2013 after recording reasons which was duly served upon the assessee through speed post A/D. But the assessee did not comply with notice u/s 148 dated 26.03.2013. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) issued on 23.08.2013 by the ld. AO on 23.08.2013 which was returned Ishan Arora vs. ITO back un-served from the postal authorities. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) dated 23.12.2013 was also issued and served through affixture on 23.12.2013 by Inspector of the ld. AO in the presence of two witnesses. However, the assessee did not comply with said notice u/s 142(1) dated 23.12.2013. As the assessee did not comply with the notices u/s 148 dated 26.03.2013 and u/s 142(1) dated 23.12.2013, therefore, ld. AO noted that he has no alternative but to complete the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 on merits, on the basis of material available on record. Since the assessee has neither filed the voluntary return u/s. 139 of the Act nor in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, ld. AO noted that the for the year under consideration the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 17,26,200/- in S.B. a/c with Oriental Bank of Commerce on various dates. Since there is no explanation or compliance of notices ld. AO treated that cash deposits in above bank a/c amounting to Rs. 17,26,200/- as unexplained cash deposit and added to the total income of the assessee. Record also reveals that the assessee as per the information submitted by CITI Bank N.A. for the F.Y. 2007-08, the assessee has paid amounting to Rs. 2,84,255/- against credit cards bills. As the assessee did not submit any details/documents in his defense in compliance to notices u/s 142(1) dated 23.12.2013, therefore, ld. AO hold that payment of credit card bills

4. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here below:-

4. Decision on Condonation of delay: 4.1 On perusal of Form No. 35, it is seen that the date of service of order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 dated 26.02.2014 is on 30.09.2019 as claimed by the appellant, however, the appellant did not submit any prove of for the same. Accordingly, considering a limit of 30 days, an appeal needed to be filed by 25.03.2014, however same has been filed on 07.10.2019 which is belated by 2022 days and that too with any plausible explanation. 4.2 The appeal as per the Appeal Memo was filed on 07.10.2019. The appellant has not filed any letter for condonation of delay. Further, the appellant has not made any submissions or given any explanation for the delay in filing the appeal during the course of the appellate proceedings despite opportunities allowed as mentioned above. 4.3 The following is worth notice in this case- (i) The order appealed against is dated 26.02.2014 and date of service is stated to be on 30.09.2019 and appeal in Form No. 35 has been filed on 07.10.2019 i.e. delay by 2022 days by giving vague reasons for filing appeal late. (ii) Further, the delay in filing appeal has been attributed to late service of assessment order. However, the appellant did not provide any supporting document to prove his claim. 4.4 As per the provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec.249 of the Act, the appeal should be filed/presented within 30 days of the date of service of the demand notice along with order appealed against on the appellant concerned. Further, as per sub-section (3) of sec.249 of the Act. the CIT(A) has been empowered to admit an appeal which has been filed after the expiry of the stipulated period of 30 days, but subject to recording his satisfaction that the assessee has sufficient cause" for not filing the appeal within the said period. As such, the Ishan Arora vs. ITO CIT(A) is vested with the power of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The relevant portion of the statute is reproduced below: "(3) The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." 4.5 However, the appellant should file an application for condonation of delay at the time of filing the appeal in Form no. 35, along with the details/reasons in order to demonstrate existence of "sufficient cause" for such delay in filing the appeal. While doing so, the appellant should explain reasons for each day delay in filing the appeal. Procedural rules are essential in the orderly, efficient and speedy administration of justice and cannot be characterized as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party. The determination of the timeliness of the petition is important. It ought to be within the period prescribed by law as a jurisdictional requirement. 4.6 While deciding the case on the basis of delay of filing the appeal, the adjudicating authority should keep in mind two important factors i.e., 1. Whether it is a minor delay of a few days or inordinate delay running into several months/years.

2. Whether the appellant has established its bona-fides with regard to existence of sufficient cause which prevented from filing the appeal within the due date prescribed as per the provisions of the law. In the instant case, due to huge delay in filing the appeal, the appellant's case falls under the category of inordinate delay, and, therefore, it is not possible to approach the case from the liberal viewpoint. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal should be viewed applying strict rules of limitation law. The Courts have held that "The inordinate delay cannot be condoned simply because the appellant's case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant was diligent and was not guilty of negligence, whatsoever. The "sufficient cause" within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The cause for the delay in filing the appeal, which by due care and attention, could have been avoided, cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision". 4.7 As seen from this factual position, the appellant has furnished misleading reasons for delay in filing this appeal and hence it would appear that there was Ishan Arora vs. ITO no genuine reason for delay in filing appeal, but for mere negligence and nonchalant attitude on the part of the appellant. Also, the appellant has not explained each day's delay in filing the appeal. In this connection, it is also important to note that as per the settled position of law, adjudication of condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the adjudicating authority/court and not of right of the appellant. 4.8 Under the circumstances, keeping in view of the fact that there has been an inordinate delay, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to prove its bonafides to establish with evidence that it was prevented by unavoidable circumstances from filing the appeal or there was "sufficient cause" for not filing the appeal in time. 4.9 The various courts have also held that in case the appellant is not able to show that there existed sufficient cause for the delay in filing of appeal beyond the limitation period, the appeal is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents-

1. 1. In the case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector Of Customs [1989] 175 ITR 540 (SC), the Apex Court has held that if the statute gives a right to appeal upon certain conditions, it is upon fulfillment of those conditions that the right becomes vested in, and exercisable by, the appellant.

2. In the case of Ram Lal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been held that the party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court.

3. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Somerset Place Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs. Income Tax Officer 16(2) (1) reported in 57 taxmann.com 7, examined the issue whether the applicant had shown 'sufficient cause' to become entitled for condonation of delay. After considering the facts and the opposing arguments, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under (emphasis supplied): "7. We are of the opinion that the reasons as shown by the applicant cannot fall within the parameters of sufficient cause so as to confer a benefit of condonation to the applicant. This is for the reason that the applicant had taken a well considered decision not to move further proceedings against the order dated 31.10.2008. Applying the test of a prudent litigant it cannot be held that once the applicant by his own volition had decided to accept a judicial order, the applicant can at any time assail the same may be for the reason that subsequently new decisions are rendered on that issue. Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be stretched to bring about a situation of unsettling Ishan Arora vs. ITO judicial decisions which stood accepted by the parties. If the contention of the applicant is accepted, it would create a situation of chaos and unsettling various orders passed from time to time by the Tribunal as accepted by the parties. The legislative mandate in stipulating a limitation to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation cannot be permitted to be defeated when a litigant has taken a decision not to pursue further proceedings. A new ruling is no ground for reviewing a previous judgment. If this is permitted, the inevitable consequence is confusion, chaos, uncertainty and inconvenience as then no orders can ever attain finality though accepted by parties"

1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj vs The Spl Land Acquisition Officer (Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013, dated 22.08.2013) held and observed as under (emphasis supplied): "13. The Statute of Limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale......An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches."

1. In Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh and others (2010) 8 SCC 685, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held and observed as under (emphasis supplied): “25. We may state that even if the term "sufficient cause" has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of "reasonableness" as it is understood in its general connotation.

Ishan Arora vs. ITO (vi) A reference can be made to the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ornate Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, Ward 3(2)(3) (2009) 312 ITR 193, wherein it was observed as under (para 11 & 12, emphasis supplied): “11. Another aspect of the case is that the revenue and/or even the assesses are expected to act with care and expeditiousness and not to let things lie unprocessed for months together. The law of limitation is normally to be construed strictly as it has the effect of vesting for one and taking away right from the other. To condone the delays in a mechanical or a routine manner may amount to jeopardizing the legislative intent behind section 5 of the Limitation Act…………It interposes a statutory bar after a certain period giving quietus to the rights arising Where the parties chose from a judgment which is sought to be impugned……………. to sleep over their rights for prolonged periods without any just cause, can hardly claim equity in justice particularly faced with the statutory provisions of section 5 of the Act. (vii) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. (RFA 497/201dated 18 May, 2017), held as under: "11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep slumber after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory put forth by the appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted. The appellant is not a simple or rustic illiterate person but a Private Limited Company managed by educated businessmen, who know very well where their interest lies. The litigant is to be vigilant and pursue his case diligently on all the hearings" 4.10 In view of the above facts and circumstances wherein the appellant has submitted that the cause of delay was due to misplacement of assessment order and corona pandemic, however, the same is not accepted as the assessment order of the appellant was passed on 20.09.2019 and the appellant had sufficient time to file appeal as the lockdown in India was declared on 23.03.2020, the appeal of the appellant is barred by limitation and not maintainable as per the provisions of section 249(2) r.w.s 249(3) of the Act Ishan Arora vs. ITO and is being dismissed as non-maintainable without any adjudication on merits or any other aspect of the appeal. 4.11 It is well settled legal position that until and unless delay in filing the appeal is condoned by the CIT(A), the said appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication on merits of the case. Accordingly, once the appeal is not admitted on account of delay in filing the appeal, the question of adjudicating or deciding the appeal on merits of the case does not arise. 4.12 In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble ITAT, Agra Bench in the case of Sri Rajeev Agarwal vs. DCIT in IT(SS) A No.02/Agra/2011 for Block Period 01.04.1989 to 16.02.2000 dated 23.03.2012, has categorically explained the proposition of law that the CIT(A), after having recorded the finding that the appeal is barred by limitation, cannot decide the case on merits as such course of action is not permissible under law. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced below for ready reference: "5. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. As per details given in form No.35 of appeal filed before the Id. CIT(A), the impugned penalty order was served upon the assessee on 27.02.2006 and the appeal was preferred before the Id. CIT(A) on or after 04.04.2006. As such, the Id. CIT(A) correctly noted in the appellate order that the appeal is time barred because the appeal is not filed within prescribed period of 30 days. According to section 249(3), the Id.CIT(A) could admit the appeal after the expiry of such period if he was satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that period. The Id.CIT(A), however, noted in the appellate order that no request is made on record for condonation of delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. As such, the appeal of the assessee was clearly time barred and the Id. CIT(A) rightly held the appeal of the assessee as non-maintainable. The assessee has not challenged the finding of the Id. CIT(A) in the grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal. No material or evidence is filed to explain the delay in filing the appeal and as such, the request of the Id.counsel for the assessee for remanding the matter to the file of Id.CIT(A) in this regard cannot not be allowed. Since the appeal of the assessee was time barred before the Id. CIT(A) and there is no challenge to the said finding before us, we are of the view that the appeal of the assessee is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. However, we may note that the Id.CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding the appeal on merit also after recording the above findings of appeal being time barred. Such a course adopted by the Id.CIT(A) is not permissible under law and as such, the Id.CIT(A) should be careful in taking Ishan Arora vs. ITO up such a matter. With these observations, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed."

5. In the result, the current appeal fails on account of non-condonation of inordinate delay and is, therefore, dismissed unadmitted as non-maintainable.

5. Feeling dissatisfied from the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the second appeal before this tribunal. Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following written submission:- “Your Appellants submit the following Statement of Facts of Appeals in respect of our appeal- STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The appellant was engaged in trading of automobile parts and batteries under the name M/s Rosh Automobiles during the relevant assessment year.

2. The appellant had a turnover of ₹25,61.832 (inclusive of VAT ₹2,83,981) and filed VAT returns with the concerned department. Sales were mostly in cash and deposited in Oriental Bank of Commerce.

3. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 on 26.03.2013 alleging that income had escaped assessment. However, no such notice or reasons recorded were ever served upon the appellant.

4. The assessment was completed ex parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 on 26.02.2014. making additions of ₹17,26,200 as unexplained cash deposit and ₹2,84,255 as unexplained expenditure (credit card payments), without proper opportunity of being heard. A copy of the assessment order dt. 26.02.2014 is attached herewith as Annexure-1.

5. No valid notice u/s 142(1) or 148 was served. The entire assessment order was passed without communication to the assessee and came to his knowledge only in 2019. Thereafter, an appeal was filed on 07.10.2019.

6. The CIT(A) (NFAC) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 03.03.2025 on the ground of delay (2022 days) without condoning the delay, despite genuine reasons for late filing. A copy of the appeal order u/s 250 of the Income tax Act, dt. 03.03.2025 is attached herewith as Annexure-2 for your kind consideration

7. The appellant was eligible for presumptive taxation under section 44AF, since his turnover was under 240 lakhs, and was not liable for tax audit.

Ishan Arora vs. ITO 8. The additions were unjustified, as all cash deposits were from sales and credit card payments were either business-related or personal (drawings). VAT returns and purchase records support the appellant's contentions. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1

1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without condoning the same, despite existence of bonafide and sufficient cause. The assessment for the Financial Year 2007-08 (Assessment Year 2008-09) was completed ex-parte on 26.02.2014. The appellant had no knowledge of the said assessment order until the year 2019. Upon becoming aware of the assessment order, the appellant immediately applied for a certified copy on 16.08.2019. The certified copy of the order was provided to the appellant only on 30.09.2019. Thereafter, without any delay. the appellant filed an appeal before the Learned CIT(A) on 07.10.2019, well within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy. The delay in filing the appeal from the date of the original assessment order was entirely bona fide, as the appellant had no prior knowledge of the assessment order until 2019. The appeal was filed promptly upon receipt of the certified copy, along with an application for condonation of delay. It is respectfully submitted that the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessment order dated 26.02.2014 was never served earlier, and therefore. the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantive justice. following settled judicial precedents. A certified true copy of the assessment order dated 26.02.2014, duly certified on 30.09.2019, is attached herewith as Annexure-1 for your kind consideration. Legal Position (a) Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963- Provides that delay can be condoned if "sufficient cause" is shown. Courts have consistently held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other. cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. (b) Case Laws Supporting the Appellant:- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) The Honorable Supreme Court held that substantial justice should not be defeated by technical considerations. Liberal approach to be taken in condonation of delay. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 Apex Court held that the length of delay is immaterial: sufficiency of cause is the real test. Delay caused due to bona fide reasons must be condoned. Mrs. T. Porkodi v. Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Madras High Court, 2025) High Court condoned a delay of 288 days where the assessee was unaware of the order and circumstances were beyond control. State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972 AIR 749 SC)

Ishan Arora vs. ITO Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is not intentional. Supreme Court Clarification (2025) On condonation matters, appellate authority is confined to examining whether delay was justified; merits of the case cannot be examined at this stage. Application of Law to the Present Case In the instant case, the assessment order dated 26.02.2014 was never served on the appellant. The appellant obtained certified copy only on 30.09.2019 and filed appeal immediately on 07.10.2019. There is no negligence, no inaction, and no mala fide on the part of the appellant. iv. The delay is therefore covered under "sufficient cause" as recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Denial of condonation would result in grave injustice, as the appellant would be deprived of the statutory right to appeal without any fault on their part.

4. That the assessment framed u/s 144/147 is bad in law due to lack of valid service of notice u/s 148 and non-grant of opportunity under section 142(1). violating principles of rnatural justice. The notice u/s 148 allegedly dated 26.03.2013 was never served on the Appellant. No copy of reasons recorded was provided before completion of reassessment, violating the judgment of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [259 ITR 19 (SC)). Thus, the entire proceedings are bad in law.

Ishan Arora vs. ITO That in view of the above, the so-called unexplained cash deposits, as alleged by the Learned AO in the assessment order, are nothing but cash receipts from the sale of batteries. The said cash sales were duly deposited into the appellant's bank account. The purchases to the extent of Rs. 21.60.816.81 (exclusive of VAT amount Rs. 2.69.207/-) were made out of such cash receipts from sale of batteries. For evidencing the same, sample copies of sale invoices are attached herewith as Annexure-4 for your kind consideration. A formal application for such pray is also attached herewith for your kind consideration as Annexure-10.

7. That the order passed is illegal, unjust, and contrary to the facts and law, and liable to be quashed. Prayer In view of the above submissions, the Appellant humbly prays that: A. Accept the appellant's claim under Section 44AF for presumptive taxation. B. Consider the cash deposits as legitimate receipts from the sale of batteries and allow the purchases made from those receipts. c. The assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 dated 26.02.2014 and the order of CIT(A) dated 03.03.2025 be quashed as illegal and void ab initio. D. Alliteratively, the additions made be deleted in full. E. Interest enhancement u/s 154 be struck down as unjustified. F. Such other or further relief may kindly be granted as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Tribunal. “ 5.1 As regards the turnover of the assessee the assessee has filed the following written submission:- “Respected Sir/Madam, The Appellant respectfully submits the following facts and request before the Hon'ble Tribunal for consideration:

1. 1. Eligibility for Presumptive Taxation under Section 44AF The appellant was eligible for presumptive taxation under Section 44AF of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the relevant Assessment Year (A.Y. 2008-09). The appellant's total turnover for the year (excluding VAT) amounted to Rs. 22.77.851/-, which is well within the prescribed threshold of Rs. 40,00,000/-.

2. Turnover Details and Application of Section 44AF The turnover (exclusive of VAT) was Rs. 22,77,851/-, which is clearly below the limit of Rs. 40,00,000/- specified under Section 44AF. As per the provisions of the Act. profits can be presumed at 5% of the turnover. Therefore, the appellant was not mandatorily required to maintain books of account or get them audited, as the turnover did not exceed the prescribed limit.

3. Presumptive Income Ishan Arora vs. ITO As per Section 44AF, the appellant is entitled to presume that 5% of the total turnover is the profits and gains chargeable to fax under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession." The appellant was thus exempt from the audit provisions under the Income Tax Act, as the turnover did not exceed the limit specified under Section 44AF.

5. Conclusion The appellant seeks that the assessment order be revised in light of the facts presented, with the appellant being granted relief under Section 44AF, and the audit requirement be waived accordingly. RAYER The appellant, therefore, prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:

1. 1. Accept the appellant's claim under Section 44AF for presumptive taxation.

2. Consider the cash deposits as legitimate receipts from the sale of batteries and allow the purchases made from those receipts.

3. Pass such other order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

6. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that as the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay the same be considered as the assessee has sufficient cause to file the delayed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was delayed by 2055 days. The reasons advanced before the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has received the impugned order which was dated 26.02.2014 was served on 30.09.2019. As the assessee failed to support the delayed service of the impugned order the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the appeal Ishan Arora vs. ITO and dismissed the same as the assessee failed to support the inordinate delay in filling the appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee in support of the fact that the order was certified copy made by the AO on 30.09.2019 itself is the proof of service of the order and therefore, the delay is required to be condone. So far as the merits of the dispute he relied upon the written submission and decision of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT Delhi Benches in and Jaipur bench in ITA no. 42/JP/2025.

Now coming to the grounds on merits for addition of cash deposit and credit card payment addition the assessee submitted that cash deposit arises from the turnover of the assessee as per the VAT records and the same is as per provision of section 44AF of the Act the proceeds of the sales being in cash deposited in the bank account cannot be added and only the income @ 5 % as per presumptive taxation can be added since the assessee has attended the assessment proceeding and has not filed any ITR. Considering the fact that the assessee has not provided details of turnover the matter is set aside to the ld. AO to determine the turnover and charge the tax on income as per presumptive taxation as applicable to the assessee. As regards the credit card payment the assessee has give the Ishan Arora vs. ITO details of the source if the same is meet from the business and income and are sufficient to meet that credit card payment the ld.AO may decide that issue after determining the income after determining the turnover and therefore, on these two issues on merit the matter is reminded back to the file of the ld. AO who will decide the correct income to be charged in the case of the assessee based on the above observations. Based on this observation ground no. 3, 4 and 7 are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground no. 5 being technical and since we have decided the merits of the dispute this technical ground becomes academic at this stage. Ground no. 6 is consequential for charge of interest in accordance with law. Ground no. 8 being general does not require our finding.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/10/2025.

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:- 28/10/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Ishan Arora, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-5(2), Jaipur. . 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत