RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

These are four appeals filed by the assessee against four separate orders of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi all dated 27.05.2024 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2013-14 to 16-17. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are common in all the appeals except change in figures, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the grounds raised in 2013-14 are being reproduced hereunder :-

To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. “1. The impugned addition made in the order u/s 147/144 dated 28.03.2022 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted.

2. The very action taken u/s 147 r/w 148 is bad in law without jurisdiction and being void ab-initio, the same kindly be quashed. Consequently the impugned assessment framed u/s 147/144 dated 28.03.2022 also kindly be quashed.

4. The ld. CIT (A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,97,67,171/- on account of unexplained cash credit despite the fact that the assessee is a Co-operative Society engaged in the activity of accepting deposits from its members only and redeploying the funds by way of advancing loans to the members and investing surplus funds. The addition so made and confirmed, is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be deleted in full.

5. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

Since common grounds have been raised in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, we take appeal in 2013-14 as a lead case for adjudication and the decision arrived at will be applicable to all the appeals.

3. The appeal in filed by the assessee is delayed by 204 days. The assessee vide his application supported by an Affidavit duly attested by Notary Public, Jaipur, has requested to condone the delay. The Affidavit of the assessee reads as under :- “ AFFIDAVIT To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. I, Narendra Kumar Goswami S/o Shri Ram Chandra Goswami Age 61 years resident of AB-217, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur-302019 (Raj.) do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under.

1. That I am the Counsel for the assessee in the present matter and am fully competent to make this affidavit.

3. That after my father's passing, I unintentionally neglected the filing of the appeal, owing to the emotional and personal toll this loss caused me.

4. That during this period of hardship, the assessee did not receive any notice of demand from the Department. The absence of such notice contributed to the assessee's failure to follow up on the proceedings before the Id. CIT(A).

5. That in February-2024, during a discussion regarding the matter pending before the Id. C11(A), I was reminded of the situation and checked the ITD portal , where discovered the order passed by the Id. CIT(A). I informed the assessee that an appeal need to be filed immediately, but due to my earlier oversight, this was no longer possible.

6. That I make this affidavit to explain the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, which was unintentional and occurred due to the unfortunate personal circumstances mentioned above.

7. That this petition has been prepared under my instruction and the facts narrate therein are true and correct to my personal knowledge and belief.

Place : Jaipur Sd/- Date : 18.02.2025. Deponent I, the above deponent do hereby verify that the contents of para 1 to 7 herein above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Place : Jaipur Sd/- Date : 18.02.2025. Deponent

4. Considering the reasons mentioned in the said application accompanied by an Affidavit of the assessee, we feel that the reasons mentioned in the Affidavit To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. constitute sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the time before us. Therefore, taking a lenient view and considering the principles laid down in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC), we condone the delay of 204 days in filing the appeal before us.

A.Y. 2013-14 : 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co-operative Society duly registered under the Rajasthan State Cooperative Societies Act, 1953. The assessee has not filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013-14. As per the information available with the Income-tax Department, the assessee had maintained two bank accounts with Central Bank of India wherein it deposited cash to the extent of Rs. 3,28,98,301/-. Since no ITR was filed by the assessee the source of bank deposits remained unexplained. Therefore, on the basis of information available on record, notice under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 was issued by the AO on 27.03.2021 after obtaining necessary approval of competent authority. In response to this notice, the assessee had simply filed a letter dated 28.04.2021 stating therein that the society is for mutual benefit of RMS employees and the same is registered with Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Jaipur. The assessee neither submitted any explanation regarding source of deposits nor filed its Return of Income for the assessment year 2013-14. Notices under section 142(1) were issued on 20.11.2021 and on To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. 22.02.2022. The AO vide notice dated 22.02.2022 apart from other details, specifically asked the assessee to furnish details about the deposits in bank account. No proper compliance was made by the assessee. Therefore, in order to obtain the copy of bank account statements of the assessee, the AO issued notice under section 133(6) of the IT Act to the Central Bank of India, MI Road, Jaipur on 21.03.2022 and found that only one account no. 1256456124 belonged to the assessee appellant. On verification, it was further found that the assessee appellant had deposited cash of Rs. 1,97,67,171/- in the said bank account. In spite of giving ample opportunities to explain the sources of cash deposited in the said account, the appellant failed to provide any explanation for the same. In the absence of any explanation from the appellant, the AO treated the whole amount Rs. 1,97,67,171/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the IT Act and completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 vide his order dated 28.03.2022 for the year under consideration. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee as well as the material available on record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Being aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above.

To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur.

6. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted his written submission as under :- “ Facts: The assessee is a Cooperative Society duly registered under the Rajasthan State Cooperative Societies Act, 1953. The society is constituted and managed by retired employees of the Indian Railways and functions primarily for their welfare. On account of a bonafide misunderstanding, the members of the society refrained from filing the Return of Income in earlier years. They were under the impression that, since the society was engaged in welfare activities for railway employees and its income was eligible for deduction u/s 80P, no liability to tax arose and filing of returns was not required. Subsequently, based on certain information available with the Department, the AO issued notices u/s 148 dated 27.03.2021 for the A.Y. 2013-14 to 2015-16. For the A.Y. 2016-17, a notice u/s 148 was issued pursuant to an order passed u/s 148A(d). On receipt of these notices, the assessee immediately clarified that the PAN mentioned therein, namely AADCR1819C, was incorrect. It was explained that this PAN had been wrongly allotted under the “company” category, whereas the assessee was a cooperative society. This fact had already been brought to the notice of the Department through a detailed letter dated 14.03.2019, submitted on 18.03.2019 during proceedings u/s 133(6) for assessment year 2014-15 (PBP 1-5). In that communication, the assessee had categorically informed that a fresh application had been made for allotment of a correct PAN. Pursuant to the said application, the assessee was duly allotted a new and correct PAN, AACAR7371J, and this fact was specifically intimated to the AO through the above-referred letter dated 14.03.2019. Despite such intimation, subsequent notices and correspondence continued to be issued under the old PAN. The assessee consistently requested that the proceedings be conducted under the correct PAN AACAR7371J and that the old PAN be discarded. However, the AO insisted that the assessee should file its return of income under the old PAN, which had been erroneously allotted in the company status. Since no notice u/s 148 had been issued for the correct PAN, electronic filing was not possible. In order to comply with the statutory requirements, the assessee prepared manual returns of income along with the computation of income under the correct PAN and submitted the same before the AO, duly claiming deduction u/s 80P. The assessee also made repeated personal visits to the office of the AO, requesting that the manual returns be accepted and the proceedings be aligned with the correct PAN.

To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. In disregard of these submissions and despite being fully aware of the facts, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments u/s 147/144 on the basis of the incorrect PAN and without granting the deduction claimed u/s 80P. The assessments were completed by treating the society’s income as taxable in its entirety, which has caused serious prejudice to the assessee. The assessment orders were passed determining the income at ₹1,97,67,170/- for A.Y. 2013-14 (order dated 28.03.2022), ₹1,63,55,298/- for A.Y. 2014-15 (order dated 29.03.2022), ₹68,59,417/- for A.Y. 2015-16 (order dated 29.03.2022), and ₹14,38,852/- for A.Y. 2016-17 (order dated 05.03.2024). Hence this appeal. GOA-1. The impugned addition made in the order u/s 147/144 dated 28.03.2022 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted.

GOA-2. The very action taken u/s 147 r/w 148 is bad in law without jurisdiction and being void ab-initio, the same kindly be quashed. Consequently, the impugned assessment framed u/s 147/144 dated 28.03.2022 also kindly be quashed.

GOA-3. The ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in framing the assessment u/s 144 without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity and even without complying with the mandatory statutory requirement of law. The impugned order having been framed in gross breach of natural justice, kindly be quashed.

Facts: As narrated above. Submissions:

To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur.

2. Incorrect Assumption of Facts in Recording of Reasons: 2.1 The reassessment proceedings initiated in the present case are fundamentally flawed, as they are vitiated by an incorrect assumption of facts and absence of any tangible material at the stage of recording of reasons. It is a well-settled principle of law that the formation of belief u/s 147 must rest upon correct, cogent, and relevant material. Where such belief is based on incorrect or non-existent facts, the very foundation of jurisdiction collapses and the reassessment cannot be sustained. 2.2 A close examination of the figures relied upon by the ld.AO at the time of recording reasons, when compared with the eventual additions made in the assessments, reveals glaring inconsistencies. For the assessment year 2013-14, the reasons recorded alleged deposits of ₹3,28,98,301/-, yet the final addition was restricted to ₹1,97,67,170/- only. In the following year, A.Y. 2014-15, the alleged deposits as per reasons recorded were ₹1,50,67,350/-, while the addition ultimately made was ₹1,63,55,298/-. Likewise, for A.Y. 2015-16, the reasons referred to deposits of ₹1,58,73,483/-, but the actual addition was reduced to ₹68,59,417/-. These wide variations between what was recorded as the basis for reopening and what was finally added in assessment clearly demonstrate that the reasons were not supported by proper verification or accurate material. 2.3 The position is even more striking in A.Y. 2016-17. In this year, the reasons recorded—pursuant to an order u/s 148A(d)alleged cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-. However, in the assessment order ultimately passed, no addition on account of such alleged deposits was made. Instead, the AO proceeded to disallow deduction u/s 80P amounting to ₹14,38,852/-, solely on the ground that no return of income had been filed and that deductions under Chapter VI-A, including S. 80P, can only be allowed where a return is filed. Thus, while the reopening was initiated on the premise of unaccounted cash deposits, the addition finally sustained was entirely different in nature, i.e., disallowance of deduction u/s 80P. 2.4 This clear disconnect between the reasons recorded and the additions made is fatal to the validity of the reassessment. The law requires that there must be a live link or nexus between the reasons which formed the foundation of the belief of escapement of income and the additions ultimately made in assessment. In the present case, that nexus is wholly absent. The reasons have evidently been recorded in a mechanical manner, without due verification of facts, and on the basis of figures which are either inflated, incorrect, or unrelated to the additions ultimately made. 2.5 Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings have not been initiated on the strength of correct and tangible material, but merely on assumptions, presumptions, and erroneous figures. The belief that income had escaped assessment was therefore based on wrong To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. facts, and the jurisdiction assumed u/s 147 stands vitiated in law. On this ground alone, the impugned reassessment orders are liable to be quashed.

3. Absence of Tangible Material at the Time of Recording Reasons:3.1The assessment records themselves reveal that at the time of recording of reasons, the AO was not in possession of any cogent material that could justify the formation of belief of escapement of income. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 27.03.2021, followed by notice u/s 142(1) on 20.11.2021. However, to ascertain the correct quantum of deposits, the AO resorted to issuing notice u/s 133(6) to the bank only on 21.03.2022 (Refer AO Pg 1-2). 3.2This chronology clearly shows that, at the stage of recording of reasons, the AO had nothing more than ITBA/NMS data. Such system-generated information at best gives rise to suspicion but does not constitute tangible material to form the requisite “reason to believe” as mandated by S.147. It is a settled principle of law that subsequent enquiries cannot supplement or cure the defect in the reasons initially recorded. Jurisdiction u/s 147 can be assumed only if tangible material is already in possession of the AO at the time of recording of reasons. 3.3.1 This precise issue has been examined by the Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Apoorva Sharma v. ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur, order dated 06.10.2021, wherein the Tribunal held that where the AO records reasons only on the basis of ITS/Form 26AS data and initiates enquiries u/s 133(6) only after recording of reasons, such reasons lack tangible material and the reopening is invalid. The Tribunal emphasized that the belief of escapement must be founded on material available at the time of recording reasons and cannot be built upon subsequent investigations. The relevant extracts are as under: “9. Now, coming to the second contention raised by the ld A/R challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing officer in initiating the reassessment proceedings on the basis of reasons recorded on incorrect assumption of facts and non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer at the time of recording of the reasons and even the approval granted mechanically by the concerned sanctioning authority. In this regard, we refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing officer before issuance of notice u/s 148 which read as under:- On the basis of the information available on the record, it is gathered that during the year under consideration the assessee has received the gross receipts amounting to Rs.21,60,840/- on which TDS of Rs.2,17,807/- has been deducted but he/she/it has not filed return of income for the year under consideration. Letter of NMS has also been issued but no compliance was made. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the above income of Rs.21,60,840/- which is chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.”

To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. That where the AO merely reproduces the report of the Investigation Wing without any independent application of mind, the reopening is bad in law as it amounts to borrowed satisfaction.

3.3.3 Similarly, in RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi HC) held that: “Section 68, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Cash credit (Accommodation entry) – Assessment year 2008- 09 – Information was received from investigation wing that assessee-company was a beneficiary of accommodation entries received from certain established entry operators - During investigation, it was found that entry operators were engaged in money laundering business for beneficiaries - According to Assessing Officer, sources of transactions were not explained - Notice was issued by Assessing Officer to reopen assessment on aforesaid basis that income chargeable to tax to extent of accommodation entry had escaped assessment - Whether information received from investigation wing could not be said to be tangible material per se without a further inquiry being undertaken by Assessing Officer to establish link between 'tangible material' and formation of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and consequently, reassessment was unjustified - Held, yes” 3.3.4 The Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in Sh. Shujaat Ali Khan v. ITO (2021) 085 ITR 0661 (JP) / 2021 TaxPub(DT) 0887 held that: “Even though reopening was made after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment, however, there was no original return of income filed by assessee and consequent assessment, hence it was not necessary for AO to show that there was any failure to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for assessment in terms of proviso to section 147, however, AO had merely gone by the CIB report and was not even in possession of sale deed and the exact specifics of transaction at the time of recording of reasons and, therefore, proceedings were vitiated for want of tangible material in possession of AO and lack of reason to believe which was more in the realm of suspicion, rather than formation of opinion that income had escaped assessment.” 3.3.5 Likewise, in Balaji Health Care Pvt. Ltd v. ITO ( 2019) 199 TTJ 966(Trib)(Jaipur)held that:

S. 147 : Reassessment-Bogus share capital-Intimation-The AO cannot reopen without establishing prima facie that assessee’s own money has been routed back in form of share capital. While he can rely on the report of the Investigation Wing, he has to carry out further examination and analysis in order to establish the nexus between the material and formation of belief that income has escaped assessment. In absence thereof, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147 has no legal basis and resultant reassessment proceedings deserve to be set-aside. [S.143(1), 148 ] 3.3.6 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in PCIT v. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 153 / 167 DTR 290 / (2020) 422 ITR 337 (Bom.) held that “S. 147 : Reassessment–Intimation-The AO cannot reopen on the basis of info received from DIT (Inv.) that a particular entity has entered into suspicious transactions without linking it to the assessee having indulged in activity which could give rise to reason to believe that income has escaped assessment- Such reopening amounts to a fishing inquiry- The AO has to apply his mind to the information received by him from the DDIT (Inv.) and cannot act on on borrowed satisfaction. [S. 143(1), 148]”

To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. 3.3.7 Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO v. LakhmaniMewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 held that: "The reasons for the formation of the belief must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income-tax Officer and the formation of his belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. It is no doubt true that the court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the Income-tax Officer on the point as to whether action should be initiated for reopening assessment. At the same time, we have to bear in mind that it is not any and every material, howsoever vague and indefinite or distant, remote and farfetched, which would warrant the formation of the belief relating to escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment. The fact that the words "definite information" which were there in section 34 of the Act of 1922, at one time before its amendment in 1948, are not there in section 147 of the Act of 1961, would not lead to the conclusion that action can now be taken for reopening assessment even if the information is wholly vague, indefinite, far- fetched and remote. The reason for the formation of the belief must be held in good faith and should not be a mere pretence". 3.4 Applying these principles to the present case, it is evident that the AO proceeded to record reasons on the basis of unverified ITBA/NMS information, which was neither tangible nor sufficient to constitute belief of escapement of income. The subsequent exercise of collecting bank statements through S.133(6) notices only underscores that no such material was available at the inception. The wide gap between alleged deposits and final additions further demonstrates non-application of mind. The so-called reasons recorded, therefore, fall squarely in the realm of suspicion and not belief, and consequently, the jurisdiction assumed u/s 147 is wholly invalid in law. In light of the above factual and legal position, it is respectfully submitted that the reassessment proceedings-initiatedu/s 147 and the consequent additions made in the impugned assessment orders are bad in law, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed. 4.Notice Issued u/s 148 on Wrong PAN:4.1 It isfurther submitted thatanother glaring issue which vitiates the reassessment proceedings is the fact that the notice u/s 148 was issued on an incorrect PAN despite the assessee having duly intimated the correct PAN to the Department well in advance. The assessee, through a formal communication dated 18.03.2019, during the course of proceedings u/s 133(6) for A.Y. 2014-15 (Copy enclosed), had categorically informed the jurisdictional AO that the old PAN AADCR1819C had been erroneously issued under the status of “Company.” It was further explained that since the assessee is in fact a Society assessable under the status of “Association of Persons,” a new PAN AACAR7371J had been duly allotted by the To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. Income Tax Department. The said letter clearly requested the Department to take note of the correct PAN and to use the same for all future correspondences and proceedings. 4.2 Despite this specific intimation and despite the fact that the new PAN was already allotted and in active use, the ld. AO, while initiating reassessment proceedings, proceeded to issue notice u/s 148 dated 27.03.2021 in the name of the assessee under the wrong and invalid PAN AADCR1819C. Such action is not a mere technical lapse but goes to the root of jurisdiction. The issuance of notice u/s 148 is a condition precedent for valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147. If such notice is issued on an incorrect or invalid PAN, it renders the entire reassessment proceedings null and void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order framed u/s 147/144 dated 28.03.2022 is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 4.3 The settled legal position is that jurisdiction to reopen an assessment flows from a valid notice u/s 148, and if the very notice is defective or issued in the name of a wrong person or entity, the entire proceedings collapse. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) held that where the statute mandates issuance of a notice as a precondition, such notice must be issued correctly and in accordance with law, failing which the entire assessment becomes invalid. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) emphasized that the Assessing Officer must strictly adhere to the provisions of the Act while assuming jurisdiction u/s 147, and any deviation from the statutory mandate invalidates the proceedings. 4.4 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 288 (Del.) held that issuance of notice u/s 148 is not a mere procedural formality but a jurisdictional requirement, and where such notice is defective or not properly issued, the reassessment cannot be sustained. Likewise, in CIT v. Norton Motors (2005) 275 ITR 595 (Madras HC), it was held that if a notice is not issued to the correct person or is issued in the wrong name, the very foundation of the assessment stands vitiated. 4.5 Applying the ratio of these judicial pronouncements, it becomes evident that the notice dated 27.03.2021 issued u/s 148 in the name of the assessee’s incorrect and invalid PAN AADCR1819C, despite the Department having been duly informed of the correct PAN AACAR7371J through letter dated 18.03.2019, is wholly illegal and bad in law. As the jurisdictional notice itself is invalid, the reassessment order dated 28.03.2022 passed u/s 147/144 has no legs to stand on and is liable to be quashed in limine.

To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur.

5. Invalidity of Reassessment based on Suspicion:5.1 The reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee society suffer from a fundamental jurisdictional infirmity, as they are based purely on suspicion, without any tangible or credible material to substantiate the belief that income had escaped assessment. The notice dated 27.03.2021 issued u/s 148 records that the assessee had allegedly deposited ₹3,28,98,301/- during A.Y. 2013-14, whereas the actual deposits in the said year amounted only to ₹1,97,67,170/-. For A.Y. 2014-15, the reasons recorded referred to alleged deposits of ₹1,50,67,350/-, while the actual deposits as per the assessee’s own records stood at ₹1,63,55,298/-. Similarly, for A.Y. 2015-16, the alleged cash deposits were stated to be ₹1,58,73,483/-, whereas the actual deposits during the year were only ₹68,59,417/-. In A.Y. 2016-17, the reasons recorded alleged cash deposits of ₹70,92,789/-, yet in the assessment, the AO chose to disallow deduction u/s 80P amounting to ₹14,38,852/-(i.e. Surplus declared during the year). 5.2 These striking discrepancies between the amounts cited in the reasons recorded and the actual figures reflected in the assessee’s bank statements clearly demonstrate that the so-called “reason to believe” was founded on unverified, incorrect, and incomplete information. There was no tangible material on record to justify the reopening of assessment, and the belief of escapement of income appears to have been premised on mere suspicion rather than any objective verification. It is well settled in law that jurisdiction u/s 147 cannot be invoked on the basis of conjecture or suspicion; there must exist credible and relevant material forming the foundation of the belief. In the present case, the absence of any such material, coupled with the glaring inconsistencies between alleged deposits and actual figures, renders the entire assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 wholly invalid. The reassessment proceedings, being founded on suspicion rather than verified facts, are therefore vitiated ab initio and liable to be quashed. 5.3It is a settled position of law that reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 cannot be initiated on mere suspicion or change of opinion, but must be supported by tangible and credible material. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 312/320 ITR 561 (SC)categorically held that the concept of “change of opinion” must be distinguished from “reason to believe,” and that the latter must be founded on tangible material, not on mere suspicion. The relevant extracts are as under: “4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 , re- opening could be done under above two conditions and fulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back assessment, but in section 147 of the Act [with effect from 1-4-1989], they are given a go-by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, post 1-4-1989, power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1-4-1989 , Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.” Similarly, in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC), it was held that the jurisdiction of the AO u/s 147 is not unbridled, and reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely to make a roving or fishing enquiry in the absence of material evidence of escapement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) also observed that though sufficiency of material may not be gone into at the stage of issuance of notice, there must at least exist some material, more than suspicion, on the basis of which belief of escapement is formed.

5.4In the present case, the only material relied upon by the AO was unverified ITBA/NMS data, which was subsequently found to be factually incorrect when verified against the assessee’s bank statement. Such reliance on vague information without proper inquiry does not constitute “tangible material.” This view has also been consistently upheld by various High Courts. For instance, in PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi HC), it was held that mere reproduction of information from an external source without independent application of mind does not confer jurisdiction to reopen an assessment. Similarly, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 231 (Raj.) held that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for the statutory requirement of “reason to believe.”

Submissions: GOA 3 : No reasonable opportunity: - Sec.144 not complied: Submission: 1. It is submitted that no proper and adequate opportunity of being heard was provided. The notices mentioned, were not received by the appellant. In the assessment order the AO has alleged that some notices were issued u/s 142(1) of the act to the assessee however, the assessee did not make any compliance, the AO therefore, completed the assessment u/s 144 by making the addition. 2.1 The impugned assessment was framed u/s 144, which obliges the ld. AO to make a best judgment assessment, which, by it's very title required the ld. AO to choose the best of his judgments i.e. out of more than one alternatives/options before him. The provisions To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. are not meant to penalize the assessee in as much as separate provisions are there. Kindly refer Shankar Khandasari Mill 193 ITR 669 (Ker). He has to assess the income following the underlying principle u/s 144. The ld. AO however, did not comply with the settled principle in as much as he could have at least made enquiry from the bank and obtained the bank statement which itself shows the fact of cash withdrawal, which was the source of deposit, as stated above. 2.2 Where the action u/s 144 is upheld, the law is well settled by now that in the best judgment assessment the AO should not make capricious or arbitrary exercise. A very fair and honest estimation of the income must be done rationally on the basis of whatever material is available on record or which the AO could and should have collected. Kindly refer Brij Bhushan Lal Pradyuman Kumar v. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524, CIT v. Laxmi Naraian Badri Das (1937) 5 ITR 170 (PC) and State of Kerala v. C. Valu Kutty (1966) 60 ITR 239 (SC) and also 203 ITR 630 (Cal). However, the AO has not confirmed to these principles. Thus, it is a clear case of violation of the principals of natural justice hence, the impugned assessment kindly be restored to the file of the AO for providing an effective and adequate opportunity of being heard and to decide all the issues judiciously. Hence our submission hereinafter kindly be considered in this light. GOA-4 Addition on account of unexplained investment u/s 69: Facts: The AO noted in the case that, based on available information, theassessee Society deposited Rs.3,28,98,301/- in its bank account. Alleging non-compliance, the AO concluded that upon verification of the bank statement of the assessee, it was found that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.1,97,67,171/- in bank account no. 1256456124 during the relevant assessment year. The AO alleged that despite ample opportunities, the assessee did not file a single reply regarding the source of the cash deposit. Consequently, in the absence of any ITR or reply from the assessee, the AO considered the entire cash deposit of Rs.1,97,67,171/- as unexplained investment and proceeded to make an assessment order dated 28.03.2022 u/s 147/144. Submissions: 1. Source of Cash Deposits:1.1 It is submitted that during the relevant assessment year, the Society deposited cash into its current account No. 1256456124 with Central Bank of India. These cash deposits were meticulously sourced from payments received from various members of the society, as outlined in the enclosed statement. This statement provides a comprehensive list of all members from whom cash payments were received, along with corresponding amounts and dates of receipt. 1.2 The bank statements clearly reflects the deposits made from the contributions received from our members, thus substantiating the legitimate origin of these funds.It is To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. imperative to highlight that every cash transaction detailed in the records corresponds directly to contributions made by the members towards the society's activities and obligations. As such, there exists a clear trail of documentation and evidence supporting the source and utilization of these funds. Most importantly, in AY 2016-17, the said fact was examined in detail and the source of cash deposit was accepted without making any addition on that account. 1.3 Therefore, there is no basis for considering any portion of these cash deposits as unexplained income u/s 69, as alleged by the AO in the assessment order. The meticulous record-keeping and transparency maintained by the society attest to the legitimate nature of these cash deposits, which are entirely accounted for and verifiable through the provided documentation. 2.All the members are retired railway employees. The amounts deposited by the members of the society are utilized only for the sake of the members of the society and for maintaining the minimum cash and bank balances. The capital of the society is utilized for the fixed assets. The assessee Society is acting strictly within the objects of the society. It is working for the mutual benefit of the members of the society. In the process of its working, the society has several controls. There is an internal check system and will be inspected by the members. The Society operations / transactions are managed by the Managers / Accountant appointed for the purpose in accordance with the bye laws of the society. The General Body examines the activity of the society vis-a-vis the bye laws of the Society and the provisions of various Acts governing the activity of the Society.

3. The entire process of the society is as per the objects of the society: The entire processes of the activities of the society are controlled by the general body. All the members excepting the nominal members are entitled to participate in the general body and decide whether the society is running it's activity on the Principles of Mutuality. From the date of inception till today the members of the society never felt that the society deviated from the principles of mutuality. The very aims and objects of the society are to promote the mutual help among the members and the society is able to carry out the activity strictly in accordance with the bye laws and the provisions of various acts governing the society. The entire activity of collecting the amounts from the members, utilization of the said amount, payment of interest to the members, collection of interest from the members, depositing the amounts with others and declaration of dividends were all done in accordance with the bye laws of the society which in turn are in accordance with the provisions of the act. The Authorized Representative, therefore, submitted that the society is running its activity in the direction of fulfilling the objects of the society strictly in accordance with the bye laws of the society.

To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur.

To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. 5.4 It is important to highlight that in response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee submitted not just a simple letter, but a comprehensive set of documents. This included the ITR, computation, bank statement, profit & loss statement, balance sheet, and a detailed statement showing party names, addresses, and amounts received from members. Despite these extensive submissions, the AO arbitrarily disregarded some of the documents and insisted on electronic filing under the old PAN. The arbitrary insistence of the AO on electronic filing under the old PAN, despite the change in PAN details and the substantial compliance efforts made by the assessee, raises legal implications and challenges. Kindly refer CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC): The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of fair assessment based on valid submissions and compliance efforts by taxpayers. In CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC): The Supreme Court highlighted the need for AO to consider all relevant documents and submissions made by taxpayers during assessment proceedings. In conclusion, the non-compliance allegation against the assessee appears baseless in light of the substantial compliance efforts made and the correct information provided regarding the change in PAN details. Fair treatment, adherence to procedural requirements, and consideration of all valid submissions are essential for a just and accurate tax assessment process.

6. Claiming Deduction u/s 80P and Powers of CIT(A): 6.1It is further submitted that the entitlement of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80P before the ld. CIT(A), considering the circumstances where the AO did not admit the documents submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. It is emphasized that the powers vested in the CIT(A) are co-terminus with those of the AO, especially concerning quasi-judicial functions. The assessee diligently presented its case before the AO, seeking the rightful deduction u/s 80P. However, the AO purportedly did not admit crucial documents into the record, thereby depriving the assessee of the opportunity to substantiate its claim adequately.Despite the assessee's efforts, it was not granted a fair opportunity to raise contentions and present evidence before the AO, which hindered the proper adjudication of its case. 6.2 It is noted that the assessee faced challenges in electronically filing documents due to technical or procedural constraints, thereby necessitating a fresh claim before the appellate authority. The ld. CIT(A) is not merely an appellate authority but also possesses adjudicating powers akin to those of an AO. The scope of powers vested in the CIT(A) extends to addressing issues that were not raised or adjudicated upon by the AO, especially when fundamental rights to present evidence and arguments were denied during the initial proceedings. Kindly refer ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010): In this landmark case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that the CIT(A) has wide-ranging powers, including the authority to entertain fresh claims or contentions not raised before the AO, provided there are valid reasons such as denial of opportunity or non-admission of crucial documents by the AO.

InITO vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2015): The High Court in this case emphasized that the CIT(A) acts as a quasi-judicial authority and can examine issues beyond the scope of the original assessment if there are valid reasons justifying such examination. In PCIT vs. Karnataka State Co-operative Federation Ltd. (2021) 128 taxmann.com 1 (Kar.) held that “On revenue’s appeal, Karnataka High Court held that assessee’s claim for eligibility with regard to deduction under section 80P was entertained by CIT(A) as assessee did not have the opportunity to raise the contention before AO. As the CPC passed the assessment order, assessee had no opportunity to make a fresh claim by way of revised return before the CPC as the process is automated. Thus, assessee’s fresh claim before appellate authority is entertainable even if the same is not claimed in the original return of income, nor assessee has filed a revised return of income to make such claim.” Also refer Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 170 Taxman 304/305 ITR 103 (SC) (para 3), Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 1/284 ITR 323 (SC) (para 3), Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 25 taxmann.com 123/210 Taxman 539/349 ITR 404 (Bom.) (para 6) 8. Invalid Denial of Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) Merely for Delay/Non-Filing of Return: 8.1It is respectfully submitted that the denial of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) solely on the ground of non-filing or belated filing of return of income, is legally unsustainable, factually incorrect, and contrary to the settled judicial position as well as the clarifications issued by the CBDT. S.80P provides a substantive statutory right to co-operative societies engaged in specified activities, and once the assessee satisfies the conditions laid down therein, the benefit cannot be denied merely due to a technical lapse such as the late filing of return u/s 139(1) or non filing of return. It is a well-settled principle of law that procedural provisions are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat substantive rights, and therefore the denial of deduction in the present case militates against both legislative intent and judicial interpretation.

8.2 The legislative intent behind S.80P has been clarified through various CBDT circulars. CBDT Circular No. 9/2006 dated 10.10.2006 explicitly states that the objective of section 80P is to encourage the growth of the co-operative sector in the economic life of the country and that the provision must therefore receive a liberal construction in favour of co-operative societies. Furthermore, CBDT Circular No. 133/2007 dated 09.05.2007 clarified that the restriction of deduction u/s 80P(4) applies only to co- operative banks and not to primary agricultural credit societies or other co-operative credit societies. Thus, co-operative societies like the assessee, which are engaged exclusively in providing credit facilities to their members, continue to be eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). These circulars make it abundantly clear that the provision is To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. intended to be beneficial and should not be curtailed by hyper-technical reasoning such as delay in return filing. 8.3.1 It is further submitted that the Judicial authorities have consistently reinforced this position. The Bangalore ITAT in Shri Siddartha Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha v. ITO [2022] 136 taxmann.com 268 held that deduction u/s 80P cannot be denied merely because the assesseefailed to file the return of income by holding as under: 7. I have heard the rival submissions. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act will come into play only when a return of income is filed by an assessee and the claim for deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act is not claimed in the said return. It was contended that since the assessee did not file return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18, there was no question of invoking the provision of section 80A(5) of the Act. His further submission was that section 80AC of the Act as it existed prior to its substitution by the Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f. 01.04.2018 reads as follows: "80AC. Deduction not to bs allowed unless return furnished—Where in computing the total income of an assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2006 or any subsequent assessment year, any deduction is admissible under section 80-IA or section 80- IAB or section 80-IC or section 80 ID or section 80-IE, no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139.” He pointed out that the aforesaid provisions contemplate filing of return of income to claim deductions under certain provisions of Chapter VI “A” of the Act and 80P is not one of the section which is mentioned in section 80AC of the Act. He therefore submitted that the deduction under section 80P of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee for non filing of return of income. Learned DR, on the other hand, reiterated the stand of the Revenue as reflected in the order of the CIT(A).

8. I have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. I agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee that section 80A(5) of the Act is applicable only when a return of income is filed by an assessee and a deduction under Chapter VI “A” of the Act, is not claimed in such return of income. It will not apply to a case where no return of income is filed. The provisions of section 80AC of the Act, as we have already seen, contemplates denial of deduction in respect of certain provisions of Chapter VI “A” of the Act, if a return of income is not filed by an assessee. Those provisions, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee, do not apply to To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. the claim for deduction under section 80P of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue authorities were not justified in not entertaining the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80P of the Act as made by the assessee. 8.3.2 Similarly, in Bagalkot District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ACIT [ITA No. 283/Bang/2021, order dated 04.03.2022], the Bangalore ITAT reiterated that the right to deduction u/s 80P is substantive in nature and cannot be curtailed for procedural lapses such as late filing of return. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT v. Grama Vidiyal Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. [2020] 424 ITR 265 emphasized that S.80P, being a benevolent provision, must be liberally construed and deduction cannot be denied on hyper-technical grounds. 8.3.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Mysore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2019] 414 ITR 1 further laid down that co-operative societies engaged in providing credit facilities to their members are fully entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i), irrespective of their classification, so long as their activities are confined to their members. 8.4 On the facts of the present case, the assessee is a duly registered co-operative society engaged exclusively in providing credit facilities to its members. It is not a co-operative bank, a primary co-operative bank, or a regional rural bank, and it does not hold any license under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The assessee is not carrying on the business of banking in the commercial sense but only facilitates credit facilities for its members. Therefore, it falls squarely within the ambit of S.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The denial of deduction despite this factual position amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and is inconsistent with the legislative scheme as well as the judicial pronouncements cited above. 8.5 Furthermore, the arbitrary denial of deduction to the assessee society despite clear statutory eligibility also violates the principle of natural justice and results in hostile discrimination. Article 14 of the Constitution of India mandates equality before law and equal protection of laws. Co-operative societies which are similarly placed cannot be treated differently merely on account of procedural defaults like late filing of return, especially when the substantive benefit flows directly from the statute and is not conditional upon timely filing. Such arbitrary denial amounts to treating unequals as equals and offends the constitutional guarantee of fairness and non-arbitrariness in tax administration. 8.6 In view of the statutory framework, the clarifications issued by the CBDT, and the binding judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts, and ITAT, it is To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. clear that the assessee society is fully eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). It is equally clear that such deduction cannot be denied on the mere ground of delay or non-filing of return within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the denial of deduction in the present case is unjustified, contrary to law, and deserves to be quashed. The rightful deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) may therefore be granted to the assessee.

7. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are inter-related and challenging the validity of section 147 proceedings without having jurisdiction.

CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195: - wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the notice under section 148 is issued on a wrong PAN, it would render the entire reassessment proceedings invalid.

ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC): - The Supreme Court reiterated that the issuance of a notice u/s 148 on the incorrect PAN would vitiate the reassessment proceedings. GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC): - The Supreme Court emphasized that the AO must exercise jurisdiction strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Any deviation, such as issuing notices on incorrect PANs, would invalidate the assessment proceedings.

Based on the precedents set by these cases, it is evident that the issuance of the notice u/s 148 on the wrong PAN : AADCR1819C, despite the assessee’s intimation and the subsequent allotment of a new PAN : AACAR7371J, renders both the notice and the consequent assessment invalid.

The Notice dated 27.03.2021 issued under section 148 by the AO alleges that the assessee Society deposited Rs. 3,28,98,301/- in its bank account and has thereby escaped assessment. Consequently, the case of the assessee was reopened To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. for the amount of Rs. 3,28,98,301/- based on this reason recorded by the AO. During the assessment proceedings, when the ld. AO obtained copy of bank account from Central Bank of India bearing account no. 1256456124, it revealed that only Rs. 1,97,67,171/- was deposited in cash during the relevant year. This discrepancy between the amount alleged by the AO and the actual amount deposited raised questions regarding the validity and basis of the reassessment. From the chronology of the events it is crystal clear that at the time of recording reasons and issuing notice u/s 148 the ld. AO was not having any cogent material in his hands to evidence cash deposits of Rs. 3,28,98,301/- Hence, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO solely on the suspicion of undisclosed income without concrete evidence or basis can be challenged on legal grounds. The principle of law requires that reopening of assessment under Section 148 must have a valid and reasonable basis, supported by tangible material or information. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) emphasized that reopening of assessment under section 147 must be based on tangible material and not on mere suspicion or change of opinion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) further held that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on suspicion or conjecture, there must be tangible material indicating escapement of income. In the case of To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the AO cannot reopen assessments on the basis of mere suspicion, conjecture, or change of opinion; there must be valid and tangible material to support the reopening.

The ld. AR further submitted that the information received by the AO merely raised a suspicion and did not provide sufficient grounds for concluding that income had escaped assessment. This aligns with the principles laid down in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), wherein it was emphasized that the AO must have tangible material indicating escapement of income to validly reopen assessments under section 147.

The AO has failed to quantify the alleged escapement of income in the recorded reasons, which is crucial for belief formation as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (SC). The belief must be based on reasonable grounds and supported by tangible material as reiterated in CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

On perusal of the records, we find that the AO has failed in Independent Formation of "Reason to Believe". To validly exercise jurisdiction u/s 147, the AO must independently form a "reason to believe," and such satisfaction cannot be To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. borrowed from external sources. The AO has failed to demonstrate independent formation of belief as mandated u/s 147. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. CIT (2014) 363 ITR 300 (All.) held that the “reason to believe” must be that of the AO himself, based on his own satisfaction derived from tangible material, and not a borrowed satisfaction from third-party reports. In the present case, the reliance solely on incorrect NMS data, without any independent enquiry prior to issuance of notice u/s 148, shows that the so-called belief was neither independent nor genuine, but merely mechanical.

Thus, the absence of concrete evidence, coupled with reliance on unverified figures and failure to establish a live nexus between information received and alleged escapement of income, renders the entire reassessment process invalid in law. The AO’s action in initiating proceedings u/s 147 is based on conjecture and suspicion, and falls foul of the binding legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts.

In light of the above legal and factual position, we are of the view that the reassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 147, and the consequent notice dated 27.03.2021 issued u/s 148 and that too on a wrong PAN for which necessary intimation had been supplied by assessee two years back are without jurisdiction, invalid, and liable to be quashed. Further the proceedings are also liable to be To 246/JPR/2025 RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur. quashed being initiated merely on the basis of information without any concrete material in possession. Consequently, the assessment order framed u/s 147/144 dated 28.03.2022 is also void ab initio and deserves to be annulled. We, thus, quash the order of ld. CIT (A). Ground nos. 1 to 2 are allowed.

9. Since we have allowed the assessee's appeal on legal issue, the other grounds raised have become academic and we are not adjudicating these grounds.

, 245 & 246/JP/2025 AYs 2014-15 to 16-17 :

10. The grounds involved in these appeals are common to ITA No. 243/JP/2025. Since we have allowed the appeal of the assessee in therefore, for the same reasoning, the decision arrived at will apply mutatis mutandis.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13/10/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ xxu xks;y ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (GAGAM GOYAL) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13/10/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- RMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti, Ltd., Jaipur. 1.