Loading judgment…
Facts
Information was received that the assessee provided unaccounted cash loans to various persons. A search at the Ramesh Manihar Group revealed the assessee's involvement in cash loan finance and receiving interest income from undisclosed sources. The AO initiated proceedings under Section 148 for escaped assessment.
Held
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 147/148 were initiated based on material seized during a search, which should have led to proceedings under Section 153C, not Section 148. The CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the AO erred in initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 148 when the facts warranted proceedings under Section 153C due to seized incriminating material from a search operation involving a third party.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(1), 132, 143(2), 142(1), 147/143(3), 153A, 153C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 454/JPR/2025
vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of ld. CIT (A), Jaipur-5, Jaipur dated 15.01.2025 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. Whether the learned CIT (A) erred in quashing the assessment proceedings based solely on the High Court judgment in DBC WP 18363/2019, without considering the unique facts and circumstances of the present case.
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) is justified in holding that notice u/s 148 is not sustainable legally relying upon the order of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court’s order dated 19.03.2024 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019 and several other linked petitions wherein wrongly held that once there is incriminating material seized or requisitioned belonging or relatable to the person other than on whom search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to without giving any finding that issuance of notice under section 148 was incorrect. Thus, the CIT (A) is not justified in quashing notice issued u/s 148 of the Act.
Whether the learned CIT (A) erred in overturning the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the precedent set by the Hon. Supreme Court of India in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Circle 1(2) V/s. M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Private Limited (2022) 14 SCC 101. In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the aforementioned case, the learned CIT (A) should have upheld the issuance of the notice under Section 148, unless there were compelling reasons to deviate from the established legal precedent. The appellant craves the right to amend alter or add to any of the grounds of appeal given above.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual, derives income from business profession and other sources. The assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 1,37,46,270/- on 28.09.2011. The case was processed under section 143(1) at the returned income of Rs. 1,37,46,270/- under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this case information was received from the DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur that the assessee has given unaccounted loans in cash to various persons in F.Y. 2010-11. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out in the case of Ramesh Manihar Group on 07.01.2016. The information revealed that the group was indulged in cash loan finance on large scale. During the course of search, voluminous data comprising of excel sheets in 18 pen-drives seized from the main office of the Ramesh Manihar Group at 303, Ratna Sagar, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur which consisted details of cash loans financed by the Ramesh Manihar Group. The information further revealed that the persons of the Ramesh Manihar Group, being Shri Ramesh Chand Maheshwari and Shri Manmohan Krishan Bagla were engaged as finance brokers for arranging cash loans between various borrowers and lenders which were not reflected in the books of accounts and that the brokerage received for such unrecorded cash transactions was also not offered for taxation by the group. As per the information received, names of lender were identified from the data seized, and it was established that the assessee was associated with the above group and had given cash loans amounting to Rs. 5,00,00,000/- from undisclosed income and received interest income on these loans. Accordingly, the AO recorded reasons for escaped assessment and after taking approval of the competent authority, issued notice under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 on 31.03.2018. The notice was duly served on the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed his return of income. Notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had filed objection against the reopening of assessment proceedings, which was duly disposed off by the AO. Thereafter, the AO after considering the reply of the assessee, passed an order under section 147/143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 vide order dated 24.12.2018 at total income of Rs. 6,51,50,520/- considering the undisclosed cash loans of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- and interest earned of Rs. 14,04,250/- on these loans. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who considering the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019 dated 19.03.2024 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now, aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the very outset, we find that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in dated 22.08.2025 wherein on the similar facts, the Coordinate Bench following the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2024) 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan), DB Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019 dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The observations and findings recorded by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal case (supra), need to be reproduced. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :
"23. The reasons supplied in case in hand for initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 are based on the incriminating material and documents including Pen Drives seized during the search carried out of the Manihar Group and the statements recorded during proceedings. From the information received the AO noticed that the loan advanced and interest earned thereon were unaccounted. In other words the basis for initiation of Section 148 proceedings is the material seized relating to or belonging to the petitioner, during the search conducted of Manihar Group.
In the case where search or requisition is made, the AO under Section 153A mandatorily is required to issue notices to the assessee for filing of income tax return for the relevant preceding years. The AO assumes jurisdiction to assess/reassess 'total income' by passing separate order for each assessment.
In cases of the person other than on whom search was conducted but material belonging or relating such person was seized or requisition, the AO has to proceed under Section 153C. The two pre-requisites are that the AO dealing with the assessee on whom search was conducted or requisition made, being satisfied that seized material belongs or relates to other assessee shall hand over it to AO having jurisdiction of such assessee. Thereafter, the satisfaction of AO receiving the seized material that the material handed over has a bearing for determination of total income of such other person for the relevant preceding years. On fulfillment of twin conditions the AO shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A.
Special procedure is prescribed under Section 153A to 153D for assessment in cases of search and requisition. There cannot be a quibble with the proposition that the special provision shall prevail over the general provision. To say it differently the provisions of Section 153A to 1530 have prevalence over the regular provisions for assessment or reassessment under Section 143 & 147/148.
Section 153A and 153C starts with non-obstante clause. The procedure for assessment reassessment in Section 153A, 153C in cases of search or requisition has an overriding effect to the regular provisions for assessment or reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C. Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 153D, the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148. 29. The Department has not set up a case that for initiating proceedings under Section 148 it had material other than the material seized during the search of Manihar Group. The contention was that though the material with regard to unaccounted loan advanced by the petitioner was received, the earning of interest on unaccounted loan was derivation of the AO from the material received. The submission is that the derived conclusion cannot be acted upon under Section 153C. The submission lacks merit and shall defeat the concept ofsingle assessment order for each of relevant preceding years for assessing 'total income' in case of incriminating material found during search or requisition.
The argument that by enactment of Section 153A to 153D has not eclipsed Section 148 does not enhance the case of respondent to initiate the proceedings under Section 148. On fulfillment of two conditions for invoking Section 153C the proceeding in accordance with Section 153A are to be initiated. The operating field of and Section 1534 to 153D and Section 148 are different Applicability of Section 153C in cases where the seized material related to or belonged to person other than on whom search is conducted or requisition made does not render Section 148 otiose. Section 148 shall continue to apply to the regular proceedings and also in cases where no incriminating material is seized during the search or requisition.
The other aspect of the matter is that under Section 153A and 153C, the total income' is to be assessed. The total income includes returned income (if any), undisclosed income unearthed during the search or requisitioning and information possessed from the other sources. For Illustration: An assessee had returned income of Rs.100, undisclosed Income of Rs.200 is unearthed during search and there is information from annual information statement of nondisclosure of income of Rs. 150/-, The AO under Section 153A and 1530 shall pass order dealing with income of Rs. 100+Rs.200+Rs.150, the total income being Rs.450/-. In cases where there is no unearthing of undisclosed income of Rs.200/-, the department can resort to proceeding under Section 147/148.
The argument that Section 153C can be invoked in case there is incriminating material for all the relevant preceding years and otherwise Section 148 is to be resorted to, is misplaced. On satisfaction of the twin condition for proceedings under Section 153C, the AO has to proceed in accordance with Section 153A. Notice is to be issued for filing of the retums for relevant preceding years and thereupon proceed to assessee or reassesses the 'total income'. It is not obligatory on the AO to make assessment for all the years, the earlier orders passed may be accepted. But once there is incriminating material seized or requisitioned belonging or relatable to the person other than on whom search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to.
In view of above discussion the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders are quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law." In the totality of facts and circumstances narrated herein above, and following the judicial precedents and the decision of the coordinate bench in the assessee’s own case, supra, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). The same is upheld. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025.
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:- 26/09/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- ACIT, Alwar. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Rajendra Kumar Mundra, jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत