KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

4. Rs 7,50,000/-: The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.7,50,000/- made by the ld. AO on account of investment in purchase of Mutual Funds u/s 69 as alleged unexplained investment u/s 69, also erred in ignoring the other material and facts available on record in their true perspective and sense. The Ld. AO and CIT(A) have also erred in not considering the vital facts and material available on record in their true perspective and sense. Hence the addition so made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) are also being contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law, hence the same is illegal, bad in law, against the principle of natural justice the same may kindly be deleted in full.

: “1.1 The impugned order u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2024 as well as the action taken u/s 271(1)(c) notices u/s 271(1)(c) and other notices are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction, without proper satisfaction, approval and various other reasons or bared by limitation and further contrary to the real facts of the case, hence the same may kindly be quashed. 1.2 The Ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the fats of the case in passing the Exparty assessment order without providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard in gross breach of law , hence the order may kindly be quashed and entire addition liable to be deleted.

4. That 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.” filed by the assessee is delayed by 28 days. The assessee vide his application dated 20.05.2025 supported by an Affidavit 862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. duly attested by Notary Public, Jaipur, has requested to condone the delay. The Affidavit of the assessee reads as under :- AFFIDAVIT Reg : Koshal Kishor Sharma v/s DCIT (INTL TAX), Jaipur PAN: BNKPS3258Q A.Y. 2015-16 u/s 271(1)(c). I, Koshal Kishor Sharma S/o Bhanwar Lal Sharma Aged 58 years, R/o Sita Bari Near Airport Sanganer Jaipur Raj. 302011. Now residing at 2-7-6 TAKEWAWA SUMIDA-KU, TOKYO do hereby solemnly affirm on oath as under :-

1. 1. That I am IT assessee and My PAN is BNKPS3258Q.

2. That an appeal is being filed by me before your honor for AY 2015-16 with the delay of about 23 days. Although in actually there is no delay after coming in my knowledge about the order.

3. That the ld. CIT (A) has passed the order on dt. 12.02.2025 which was not served upon me physically. However, as per date of order the appeal was to be filed on or before 30.04.2015 but the same is being filed now i.e. by delay of about 16 month 12 days. Although in actually there is no delay if following facts are being considered.

4. That the reason of late filing was that the order was not served physically. As I am not a regular IT assessee and I am NRI, the order was sent to the counsel at Jaipur in the last week of March, 2025. The counsel situated at Jaipur. The counsel has asked to the me that there is some pressure of March and in first week he is going out of Jaipur in connection with the Bank Audits and he will do needful after coming from Bank audit as the last date is 30.04.2025. However, due to heavy pressure of Bank audits the matter of appeal filing has slipped from the mind of the counsel and has forgotten.

5. That recently when I asked to the counsel about the income tax matter, then he came to know that the same has been escaped from his mind.

6. That thereafter we discussed the matter with the counsel now what to do. Then he asked to file the appeal with the condonation of delay being a strong case in our favour. As there is a very reasonable and sufficient cause of delay being human being mistake. Thereafter our other counsel has started to prepare the appeal and the appeal has been prepared on 20/05/2025 and sent to me for signature. Due to all this reason the appeal could not be filed within time.

7. That there is a sufficient cause of delay in filing the appeal before your honor and there was no melafide intention either of the mine nor counsel as per section 5 of Limitation act.

862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur.

8. That due to all this reason the appeal could not be filed within time.

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 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 28 days in filing the appeal before us.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 for the reason that the assessee was having no taxable income in India originally. However, he has been filing his return of income from AY 2019-20 in the status of NRI. In this case the ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur has issued the notice u/s 148A(b) on dt.17.03.2022 862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. (PB 9-10) stating that“As per information available on ITD System, you have deposited cash of Rs. 51,79,100/- in following bank and investment made in purchase of Mutual fund of Rs.7,50,000/- also made payments to NRI company of Rs. 75,125/- u/s 195 to purchase of mutual fund to following persons/ concerns : S.No. Name of the Bank/Contractors Name/Mutual fund name Amount 1. State Bank of Travancore (Cash Deposit) Rs.51,79,100/- 2. Principal Mutual Fund Rs. 7,50,000/- 3. M/s. Franklin Templetion Mutual fund Rs. 75,125/- Total Rs. 60,04,225/- It is noticed that you have not filed your return of income for the AY 2015-16. In absence of return of income, source of cash deposits in bank account and payments made in purchase of unit of mutual funds remains unexplained and must be brought to tax. Thus income from above transaction has not been offered for tax and due tax has not been paid (PB 9-11) “.The response date was given for 23.03.2022. This notice was not served upon the assessee vide e-proceedings (PB 7-8), hence for want of service the reply could not be filled. The ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur passed the order u/s 148A(d) (PB12-15) and notice u/s 148 on dt.26.03.2025 (PB16) was issued. Thereafter the FAO has issued the notice u/s 142(1) dt. 29.09.2022 and on 24.03.2023 the DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur has issued the SCN u/s 21.03.2024 and the draft order u/s 144C(1) has been passed by the DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur on dt. 27.03.2022. Ultimately the DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur has passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 on dt.24.05.2023 at a total income of Rs. 862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. 60,04,230/- by making addition of Rs. 52,54,225/- on account of unexplained money under section 69A and Rs. 7,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961. On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that the assessee has neither complied with the notices issued by him nor submitted any documentary evidence in support of his case. Now, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds mentioned herein above.

6. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted his detailed written submissions, which are being reproduced herein below :- “WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS GOA:1-2 : Invalid action u/s 147/148 and invalid assessment order GOA-3 : Addition of Rs.52,54,225/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account U/s 69A GOA-4 Addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- on account o0f investment in Mutual Funds u/s 69. GOA:1-3 (in Penalty appeal u/s 271(1)(c): Invalid Imposition of Penalty of Rs.18,55,307/- u/s 271(1)(c) FACTS: 1. The brieffacts of the case as stated by our client are that the applicant assessee is an NRI residing in Japan from last 25 years and having his own business at Japan and not filed his ROI for the A.Y. 2015-16 being no taxable income in India originally. However, he is filling the ITR from A.Y. 2019-20 in the status of NRI. 2.In this case the ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur has issued the notice u/s 148A(b) on dt.17.03.2022 O/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur. Copy of notice is enclosed(PB9-10) on the reason that “As per As per information available on ITD System, you have deposited cash of Rs. 51,79,100/- in following bank and investment made in purchase of Mutual fund of Rs.7,50,000/- also made payments to NRI company of Rs. 75,125/- u/s 195 to purchase of mutual fund to following persons/ concerns :

862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. S.No. Name of the Bank/Contractors Name / Mutual fund Name Amount 1. State Bank of Travancore (cash deposit) 51,79,100/- 2. Principal Mutual Fund Amount 7,50,000/- 3. M/s Franklin Templeton Mutual fund Total • Rs.75,125/- Total Rs.60,04,225/- It is noticed that you have not filed your return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16. In absence of return of income, source of cash deposits in bank account and payments made in purchase of unit of mutual funds remains unexplained and must be brought to tax. Thus income from above transaction has not been offered for tax and due tax has not been paid (PB9-11). The response date was given for 23.03.2022. This notice not served upon the assessee, hence in want of service the reply could not be filled. In want of reply and knowledge the ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur passed the order u/s 148A(d) (PB12-15) and notice u/s 148 on dt.26.03.2025(PB16). 3.Notice with approval of Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur. As these notices have not been served upon the assesssee vide e-proceeding(PB 7-8). 4.Thereafter the FAO has issued the notice u/s 142(1) dt. 29.09.2022 and on 24.03.2023 the DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipurhas issued the SCN u/s 21.03.2024 and the draft order u/s 144C(1) has been passed by the DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur on dt. 27.03.2022. ultimately the DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur has passed the assessment order u/s 147 rws 144 on dt.24.05.2023. While passing the assessment order the ld. AO has stated that 5.On perusal of the information available on record it is noted that during the F.Y. 2014- 15 the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 51,79,100/- in the bank a/c held with State Bank of Travancore. The assessee did not submit any justification and documentary evidence regarding the source of deposits made. Also, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 75,125/- form M/s Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund, but did not furnish any documentary evidence regarding the same. Section 69A – Unexplained Money Therefore, the above discussed amount of Rs. 52,54,225/- remain unexplained and falls under the purview of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. And made the addition of Rs.52,54,225/- u/s 69A. 6.The ld. AO further stated that It is also noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee, purchased mutual fund of Rs. 7,50,000/- but failed in furnishing documentary evidence substantiating the source of the same. Therefore, in absence to supporting documentary evidence, the said transactions remain unexplained and falls under the purview of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, there is much evidence available on record which shows that during the year under consideration, the assessee has made investment of Rs. 7,50,000/- for purchase of mutual funds. Since, the assessee failed to explain the source of investment, the source of investment of Rs. 7,50,000/- remained unexplained and thus added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Thus the ld. AO made the entire cash deposit without seeing the withdrawals and nature of transactions.

862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. Hence this appeal SUBMISSIONS: 1. Notice without jurisdiction: 1.1 At the very outsetit is submitted that the applicantassessee was/isan NRI. The assessee was residing at Japan from 24-25 years who is doing business there. Thus he is falling within the jurisdiction of ACIT/DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur admittedlyand as per also PAN jurisdiction vide Annexure-A. For the year he has not filled his return being the income below taxable limit in India, however from t eh A.Y. 2019-20 he is filling his ITR, the ITR for A.Y. 2019-20 was filled on 25.06.2020 (PB1-2) in the status of NRI and thereafter also filed the ITR in the same status(PB3-6) and in the ITR he has clearly mentions status as Non Resident and given the details of the country and their Tax Identification Number and days of stay in India in last four years.As the information of being NRI was very well available on the record of the revenues record much before the issue of the notices.However the Notice was issued u/s 148 by theITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur O/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur, which was without jurisdiction, when admittedly jurisdiction over the assessee was with the DCIT/ACIT International Taxation Jaipur Raj. O/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Delhi and O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Delhi. Thus the notice issued u/s 148A(b), 148A(d) and all are without jurisdiction, without approval/sanction/satisfaction of appropriate higher authorities invalid, illegal, void-ab-initio, and liable to be quashed. Because it is the settled legal position of law that no notice u/s 148 can be issued without jurisdiction, without approval/sanction/satisfaction of appropriate higher authorities. 1.2 That it cannot be said that the department was not having the information regarding the NRI as assessee as also itself coming in the PAN Jurisdictional and above ITR and registration on portal while filling the ITR on 25.06.2020, it means the AO was having the PAN data base where the details available. It mean there are evidence in the form of portal and ITR’s, which proves that the assessee was NRI. Thus at the time of reasons recorded the department was having the proof of NRI, that is why thereafter the assessment record has been transferred to the ACIT/DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur in March 2023. 1.3 Directly covered: This issue is directly covered by the decision of this Honble Bench in the case of SunilChablani v/s AICT (Intl Tax) Jaipur in dt.22.07.2024, where under the same facts and circumstances the theHponble Bench quashed the assessment. Copy is available on the ITAT portal and we will file the copy if required. And we also request that the observation and submissions made therein may kindly be considered our WS before your honor also.

862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. And it is very well settled legal position that no notice u/s 148 can be issued without jurisdiction. Kindly refer CIT vs. Poonam Chand Surana(2014) 105 DTR 332 (Raj)held Income tax authorities—Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers—Survey u/s. 133-A was conducted at business premises of Assessee and notice u/s. 148 was issued by ITO at Suratgarh—CIT(A) held that pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction as contemplated u/s. 124 was not applicable as Assessee was filling his return of income with ITO at Chennai—ITAT held that Assessee was regularly filing his returns of income at Chennai and at time of issuance of notice under Section 148, ITO at Suratgarh had no jurisdiction over Assessee—Held, High Court found no error or illegality in observations of CIT(A), as approved by ITAT—ITO at Suratgrarh got jurisdiction over Assessee only on 21.08.2007 and prior to that, he had no jurisdiction over Assessee when he was filing returns of income with ITO at Chennai—Proposal for transfer of jurisdiction over Assessee, from Chennai to Suratgarh, materialized only on 21.08.2007 and proceedings initiated prior to such date by issuance of notice under Section 148 was not authorized and competent—When proceedings were sought to be adopted by ITO at Suratgarh, jurisdiction for assessment in relation to Assessee was being exercised at Chennai—High Court was unable to find any cogent reason to entertain appeal so as to interfere with concurrent Orders passed by CIT (A) and ITAT—Revenue’s appeal dismissed. Also refer City Garden v/s ITO 148 TTJ 637(Jd) also refer In the case of CIT v/s Anjali Dua 219 CTR 0183(Del) held that The Tribunal noted that the request of the assessee to transfer the jurisdiction was noted in the letter dt.25th March, 1998, whereby the no objection of CIT, New Delhi, was conveyed to the CIT, Ludhiana. It is also noted that thereafter the assessee submitted returns for the asst. yrs. 1997-98 onwards at New Delhi. It is in these facts and circumstances that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that insofar as, the assessee was concerned, after the said transfer, it is only Revenue authorities at New Delhi who had jurisdiction over the assessee’s cases and who were competent to issue a notice in terms of s.

5. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee contended before us that the reassessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-34, New Delhi was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed because he has simply framed the reassessment by issuing a notice under s. 143(2) on 16th Dec., 2008 without recording any reasons and without issuing a fresh notice under s. 148 of the Act. He further submitted that now the issue, i.e., whether in the absence of any valid recording of reasons by the AO having jurisdiction and without issuing notice under s. 148 the order passed by the AO was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed, stands covered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue. In support of his contentions, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee relied on the following decisions : (i) ITO vs. Krishan Kumar Gupta(2008) 16 DTR (Del)(Trib) 1—wherein the Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’ held reassessment completed by an ITO on the basis of notice under s. 148 issued by another ITO who had no jurisdiction over the assessee is not valid. Reassessment was also held to be invalid for the reason that the jurisdiction over assessee’s case was not transferred by any order passed under s. 127 by any competent authority to the ITO who passed the impugned assessment order. (ii) Ranjeet Singh vs. Asstt. CIT (2009) 120 TTJ (Del) 517 : (2008) 10 DTR (Del)(Trib) 181—wherein the Tribunal held that notice under s. 148 issued by the ITO at Ghaziabad to the assessee who was assessed to tax in Delhi was without jurisdiction and, therefore, assessment framed on the basis of said notice is bad in law; impugned notice was not in substance and effect in conformity with the provisions of s. 120 r/w s. 147 and thus, the provisions of s. 292B are not applicable.” 1.3We rely upon further judgments of Honble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Sh. Subhash Chand Ajmera v/s ITO Ward 1(4), Jaipur, in 862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. dt.30.01.2020 wherein the honble ITAT has quashed the assessment on the jurisdiction under the same facts. Hence now the matter is directly covered. Copy of order is enclosed. Here also the same position.

2. No Approval from Jurisdictional or competent Authority: Further the approval u/s 151 must be obtained from the competent or jurisdictional authority. In the present case the competent or jurisdictional authority was O/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Delhi and O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) DelhinotO/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur and O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Jaipur). In the case of CIT V/s SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd 345 ITR 223(Del).Reassessment— Sanction for issue of notice u/s 151(1)—AO issued notice u/s 147 read with S. 148 for reopening assessment after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, which was subsequently set aside by ITAT on ground that requisite approval of Additional CIT, which is mandatorily required, was not taken—Held, AO was required to take approval of Competent Authority u/s 151 (1)—AO had specifically sought approval of Commissioner only—Therefore, it cannot be said that the Joint Commissioner/Additional Commissioner had granted the approval—Further, even though the file was routed through Additional Commissioner, he did not apply his mind or gave any sanction—Instead, he requested Commissioner to accord the approval—It, thus, cannot be said that it is an irregularity curable u/s. 292B—If a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion—If discretion is exercised under direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be case of failure to exercise discretion altogether—Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly decided the legal aspect. In the case of CIT vs. Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd.(2015) 232 Taxman 0414 (Delhi HC) held Reassessment—Sanction for issuance of notice—Assessee had filed its returns in a normal course and assessment was framed u/s 143(1)—Based upon information received by AO, a satisfaction note was recorded and a notice was issued beyond four years from the end of the assessment year, under proviso to s 147(1)— Reassessment proceedings were completed—Assessee claimed that the notice u/s 147 was unsustainable because it was not approved by the competent authority in accordance with Section 151—CIT(A) sanctioned re-assessment proceedings through issuance of notice u/s 148—ITAT’s allowed assessee’s appeal by holding that the CIT lacked the authority to sanction re-assessment proceedings through issuance of notice u/s 148— Held, Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad V. Emperor had laid down that if the statute mandates that something be done in a particular manner, it should be in that manner or not at all—Thus, it was not court’s job to render, in the process of interpretation, an entire provision academic or inoperative—As per Section 151, in case the original assessment was completed “other than” i.e. otherwise than u/s 143(3) or during the course of re-assessment proceedings, competent authority would be the Joint 862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. Commissioner—Instant Court had to give effect to plain words of the statute which unambiguously stated that the competent authority in such cases was the Joint Commissioner and not the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner—Since the original assessment was completed “other than” the eventualities contemplated in Section 151(1), i.e. it was processed u/s 143(1), thus, clearly Section 151(2) would be applicable—No infirmity was found in the order of the ITAT—Revenue’s appeal dismissed. In the case of Pr. CIT vs. N.C. CABLES LTD.(2017) 98 CCH 0018 DelHC held that Reassessment—Issuance of Notice—Sanction for issue of Notice—Assessee had in its return for AY 2001-02 claimed that sum of Rs. 1 Crore was received towards share application amounts and a further sum of Thirty Five Lakhs was credited to it as an advance towards loan—Original assessment was completed u/s 143(3)—However, pursuant to reassessment notice, which was dropped due to technical reasons, and later notice was issued and assessments were taken up afresh—After considering submissions of assessee and documents produced in reassessment proceedings, AO added back a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000—CIT(A) held against assessee on legality of reassessment notice but allowed assessee’s appeal on merits holding that AO did not conduct appropriate enquiry to conclude that share inclusion and advances received were from bogus entities— Tribunal allowed assessee’s appeal on merits—Revenue appealed against appellate order on merits—Assessee’s cross appeal was on correctness of reopening of assessment—Tribunal upheld assessee’s cross-objections and dismissed Revenue’s appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-condition for issuing notice u/s 147/148—Held, Section 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize reassessment notice, had to apply his mind and form opinion—Mere appending of expression ‘approved’ says nothing—It was not as if CIT (A) had to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with noting put up—At same time, satisfaction had to be recorded of given case which could be reflected in briefest possible manner—In present case, exercise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which was rationale for safeguard of approval by higher ranking officer—Revenue’s appeal dismissed. Also refer the decision of Honble Raj High Court in the case of Dhadha Exports V/s ITO 377 ITR 347(Raj.) 3. Notice u/s 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148 not served on assessee: Further the u/s 148A(b)dt. 17.03.2022, 148A(d) and 148 dt.26.03.2022 have never been served either on the assessee any mode. On perusal of the Notice u/s 148 and e-proceedings (PB 7-8) it is clear that the same have not been sent on any email as there is no mentioning of any email address in the portal as there is bank and it is admitted facts that assessee was filling his ITR 25.06.2020 and from that day the status and email id was very well with the department. Thus the assessee was registered on the income tax portal, thus the notices have not been sent through email or any mode nor there is any observations of the ld. AO on the same i.e she is silent on the same. And the AO has nowhere provided that at what mode and 862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. when the notice has been sent for service or on which email id. Which shows that the notices have not been served on assesseethen the notice as well as all the consequent proceedings are illegal, invalid void –ab-intion and bad in law and liable to be quashed. As the Honble All High Court in the case of DaujeeAbhushanBhansar(P) Ltd v/s UOI (2022) 136 Taxman.com 246(All) dt. 10.03.2022 it has been held “Section 149, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Time-limit for issuance of notice (General) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Whether mere digitally signing a notice is not issuance of notice and point of time when a digitally signed notice in form of electronic record is entered in computer resources outside control of originator, i.e., Assessing Officer, that shall be date and time of issuance of notice under section 148 read with section 149 - Held, yes - Assessee filed its return and assessment was completed accordingly - Subsequently, a notice under section 148 digitally signed by Assessing Officer was sent to assessee through e-mail and e-mail was received by assessee on his registered e-mail ID on 6-4-2021 - Assessee submitted that reassessment notice was issued on 6-4-2021 whereas limitation for issuing notice under section 148 read with section 149 expired on 31-3-2021 and, thus, notice was time-barred - Said objection was rejected on ground that since notice was digitally signed by Assessing Officer on 31-3- 2021, it would be deemed to have been issued within time, i.e., on 31-3-2021 - Whether since impugned notice under section 148 was issued to assessee on 6-4-2021 through e- mail, impugned notice under section 148 was time-barred and consequently, it was to be quashed - Held, yes [Paras 22-30] [In favour of assessee].” Here principal is also applicable here and in the present case as reord no notice has been sent on the assessee’s email or any emails. 3.2Further if your honor is having any doubt about our above contention then the report from the Assessing officer may kindly be called for. 3.4Admittedly this notice has not been served upon the assessee. Thereafter the ld. ITO FAO has issued the notices u/s 142(1) dt.29.09.2022 on the assessee’s email as per income tax portal. Thereafter the FAO has transferred the case to the DCIT(Int.Tax), Jaipur and the DCIT(Intl.tax) has issued the SCN on dt. 21.03.2023(PB20-21) at 8.45 PM and asked to the assessee to file the reply on 24.03.2023 till 11.00 AM i.e with in less than three day. 3.5 Thus notice has not been served upon the assessee admittedly nor any evidence on record has been brought by the ld. AO in this regard, the. And the ld. AO nowhere provided proof that the notice has been served upon the assessee.As clearly appearing the E- proceedings.For reference kindly refer a direct decision of ShriChetan Gupta vs. ACIT(2014) 160 TTJ 0009 (Del)For valid assumption of jurisdiction to frame a reassessment, a proper and valid service of notice u/s 148 on assessee is mandatory 862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. requirement violation the same of will result in quashing of the reassessment proceedings. Assessee has demonstrated that the notice was issued/sent at an address different than the one mentioned in his return of income. Department also admits that the notice was served not on assessee but on one ShriVedPrakash who according to assessing officer is a responsible person working for the group entities of assessees family and this amounts to a proper service on assessee. These facts are admitted by the department which are evidenced by the remand report and field correspondence mentioned above. Assessee’s contention that Said VedPrakash was neither s his employee nor his authorized agent, remains uncontroverted. Merely because he appeared in some other group entities will not detract the fact that notice was not served on assessee. During the course of reassessment AO was intimated about non service of notices u/s 148 and 143(2) but AO failed to take cognizance of assessee’s intimation and objections. From the assessment record, remand reports, field correspondence and oral contentions, department could not demonstrate before us that notice u/s 148 was served on the assessee for A.Y. 2001-02. In the absence of a valid service of notice u/s 148 on the assessee the reassessment proceedings for AY2001-02 are bad in law, consequently they are quashed. Affirmed by theDelhi High Court 382 ITR 613 (Del.) CIT vs. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd 296 ITR 333 (Del); Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC), followed. 3.6 The ld. AO has not stated that at what address he has sent the notices and on whom the same was served. As the mandatory condition for reopening of the assessment could not have been fulfilled. Proper service of the notice u/s 148 is mandatory condition upon the assessee but Ld. AO could not have been served the notice as issued u/s 148. Further, notice issued u/s 148 is primary condition of law toinitiate the re-assessment proceedings under section 147 could not have been served properly to the assesse appellant therefore mandatory condition could not have been fulfilled. The proper service of notice u/s 148 is a jurisdictional requirement that must be mandatorily complied with and in the absence of the same, the proceedings should not be initiated on the assessee. Reassessment proceedings finalised by an AO without effecting proper service of notice on the assessee u/s 148 of the Act are invalid and liable to be quashed.An Affidavit to this effect is being submitted by the Assesse appellant and marked as Annexure-. The same contention is favoured by many land mark judgement which are as follows; Honorable ITAT, Agra Bench in M/s K.P. Cold Storage Vs ITO had held that; In the present case AO on basis of information received from the ADIT(Inv.) that there were huge cash deposits in the bank accounts maintained by assessee during the period F.Y 2008-09, had issued notice under section 148 which culminated into assessment framed determining total income at Rs. 2,21,60,400/- as against Rs.12,45,390/- originally returned by assessee. Assessee contended that no notice under section 148 was served upon assessee and ex-parte assessment was completed without 862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. serving any notice under section 148 till the completion of assessment which rendered the assessment order to be held void-ab-initio. It was held a valid service of a valid notice under section 148, is not a mere procedural requirement, but is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment, reassessment or re-computation to be made under section 147 and it is so because of the use of words “shall serve on the assessee” and also the requirement to the effect “before making the assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147” in the section itself- meaning thereby that if no notice under section 148 is issued or if the notice so issued is shown to be invalid, or the service of notice so issued, is shown to be invalid,AO could not proceed with the subsequent proceedings for making assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147. Unless, the notice was served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under section 282, the service was insufficient and AO did not have jurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income. Thus, the service of notice under section 148 was no service in the eye of law and all subsequent proceedings including the ex parte assessment framed on 21.12.2016 in assessee’s case were illegal and void ab initio. [1999] 238 ITR 694 (CAL.) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Keshab Narayan Banerjee; Section 148, read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – Issue of notice for – Assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88 – Whether service of notice is condition precedent for passing orders under section 147 – Held, yes – Whether respondent made attempt to serve notice under section 148 to appellant by registered post but it was not shown that either appellant refused to take service of notice or that appellant was not available at his residence or that there was no one willing to accept service on his behalf, service of notice could not be said to be properly effected and, therefore, assessment order passed u/s 147 based on service was also bad in law –Held, yes (In favor of assesee). In the case of A.K. Kochandi&Ors.vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER(1975) 43 CCH 0749 KerHC (1976) 1976 CTR 0072 (KER) : (1977) 110 ITR 0406 held that Assessment—Best judgment assessment—Validity—Notice not served on assessee in accordance with Order V, rr. 17, 18 & 19 etc.—Ex parte assessment not valid.

862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. 148A. The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148,— (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, 23[***] by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a); (c) consider the reply of assessee furnished, if any, in response to the show-cause notice referred to in clause (b); (d) decide, on the basis of material available on record including reply of the assessee, whether or not it is a fit case to issue a notice under section 148, by passing an order, with the prior approval of specified authority, within one month from the end of the month in which the reply referred to in clause (c) is received by him, or where no such reply is furnished, within one month from the end of the month in which time or extended time allowed to furnish a reply as per clause (b) expires: Thus when in the sec 148A(b) it has been provided that the time such time, being not less than seven days. However the ld. AO has given the time in the notice only 6 days, which gross violation of principal of natural justice and against the act and notice in not valid. The calculation of day start from next days. As 17the cannot be treated 1 day 1 days time shall be treated on 18th March according to that the time of seven days comes on 24.03.2023 after 4.19 PM and on 23.03.2022 there was only 6 days time. And as per calculation the 7 days time expires on 24.03.2022. Because in the act the word is given not less than it means there must be 7 days completed, as in a day there is 24 hours and the 7 days completed on 24.03.2022 after 4.19 PM when the department shall prove the delivery of the notice to the assessee, it is therefore your honor if having any doubt then an report may be called from the ld. AO for the proof of delivery of notice upon the assessee. Thus the notice u/s 148A(b) itself illegal, invalid, void ab initio, without jurisdiction and barred by the limitation and on other various reasons. Thus the order passed is void ab –initio and against violation of principal of natural justice .

5. No information details provided by the ld. AO with the notice u/s 148A(b): Further ld. AO has only stated the information’s but he has not provided the information with the documentary evidence with the notice on the basis of which the notice u/s 148A(b) was 862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. issued and without providing the material, information issuance of notice u/s 148A(b) is illegal, invalid void-ab-inito and liable to be quashed. Despite the facts that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has raised the objection despite he has not provided or supplied the information and details. Prayer: Thus in view of the above facts, circumstances and the legal position of law the proceedings so initiated and assessment so passed may kindly be quashed. SUBMISSIONS ON MERITS OR ADDITION:

1.

1. Copy of IT Return foray 2019-20 to 2021-22 1-6 2. Copy of Notice u/s 148A(b) dt. 17.03.2022 7-11 3. Copy of Notice u/s 148A(d) dt. 26.03.2022 12-15 4. Copy of Notice u/s 148 dt. 26.03.2022 16 5. Copy of Notice u/s 142(1) dt. 29.09.2022 17-19 6. Copy of Show Cause Notice dt. 21.03.2023 20-21

7. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

8.2 The assessee has taken the issue of jurisdiction as well as service of the notice. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee a NRI, residing at Japan for the last 24-25 years and doing business there. Thus he is falling within the jurisdiction of ACIT/DCIT (International Tax), Jaipur and also as per PAN jurisdiction under the head “Know Your Jurisdictional Assessing Officer” shown in the Income Tax Portal, as annexed by the ld. AR vide Annexure-A filed with the written submission. For the year under consideration, the assessee has not filled his return being the income below taxable limit in India, however from A.Y. 2019-20 he has been filling his ITR, the ITR for A.Y. 2019-20 was filled on 25.06.2020 (PB1-2) in the status of NRI and thereafter also filed the ITR in the same status (PB3-6) and in the ITR he has clearly mentioned status as ‘Non Resident’ and given the details of the country and the Tax Identification Number and days of stay in India in last four years. The information of assessee being a NRI was very well available in the 862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. record of the Revenue much before the issue of the notices by the AO. However, the Notice was issued u/s 148 by the ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur O/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur, which was without jurisdiction, when admittedly jurisdiction over the assessee was with the DCIT/ACIT (International Taxation), Jaipur (Rajasthan) O/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Delhi and O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Delhi. Thus the notice issued u/s 148A(b) and order issued u/s 148A(d) all are without jurisdiction, without approval/sanction/satisfaction of appropriate higher authorities invalid, illegal, void-ab-initio, and liable to be quashed. Because it is the settled legal position of law that no notice u/s 148 can be issued without jurisdiction, without approval/sanction/satisfaction of appropriate higher authorities. Thus, it cannot be said that the department was not having the information regarding the NRI status of the assessee as assessee himself coming in the PAN Jurisdiction and registration on income-tax portal while filing the ITR on 25.06.2020, it means the AO was having the PAN data base where the details are available. It means there are evidence in the form of portal and ITR’s, which proves that the assessee was a NRI. Thus at the time of reasons recorded, the department was having the proof of NRI status of assessee, that is why thereafter the assessment record has been transferred to the ACIT/DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur in March 2023.

862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. The ld.AR of the assessee further submitted that Notice u/s 148A(b)dated 17.03.2022, 148A(d) and 148 dated 26.03.2022 have never been served on the assessee any mode. On perusal of the Notice u/s 148A/148 and e-proceedings (PB 7-8) it is clear that the same have not been sent on any email as there is no mention of any email address in the portal as the same is blank and it is admitted fact that assessee has filed his ITR on 25.06.2020 and from that day the status and email id was very much with the department. Thus though the assessee was registered on the income tax portal, even then notices have not been sent through email or any mode nor there is any observation of the AO on the same as she is silent on the same. The AO has nowhere provided that at what mode and when the notice has been sent for service or on which email id., which shows that the notices have not been served on assessee thus the notice as well as all the consequent proceedings are illegal, invalid void–ab-initio and bad in law and liable to be quashed. 8.3 We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in the case of Sunil Chablani vs. ACIT (Intl. Tax) Jaipur in dated 22.07.2024 wherein validity of issue of notice and connected approval together with the jurisdiction of the ld. AO who issued the notice to the assessee,was involved. The Coordinate Bench decided the appeal of the assessee by observing in para 12 to 12.2 as under :-

862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. “12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. In this appeal the assessee has taken almost in all 11 grounds of appeal challenging the finding of the lower authority on facts as well as on legal grounds. In ground no. 1 & 2 the assessee has challenged the validity of issue of notice and connected approval together with the jurisdiction of the ld. AO who issued the notice to the assessee. Since this ground no. 1 & 2 goes into the route of all other grounds the bench decided to deal that ground first. 12.1 The facts related to the disputes as cullied out from the record is that the assessee for the year under consideration has not filed any income tax return. The revenue was in possession of the information that the assessee had sold an immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs. 69,90,000/-. Since there was no ITR filed the transaction remained unverified. Accordingly, after recording the reasons for escapement assessment, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2022 with prior approval taken from the PCIT, Udaipur. That notice dated 30.03.2022 was served to the assessee on 13.04.2022 through email and for that the assessee filed the copy of the mail issued by ITO, Ajmer. Since, the assessee has taken the issue of jurisdiction as well as service of the notice the ld. DR was upon request given time to seek comments on the legal issue raised by the assessee. The ld. AO submitted a report / comment on the case vide his letter dated 24.05.2024 wherein the ld. AO contended that the assessee was non-filer and his residential status was not known to the AO and the initial proceedings were carried out by the then AO on the basis of PAN Card details available with him. Thus, the ld. AO did not controvert the fact that the assessee is NRI as per his PAN profile filed and has simply relied upon the fact that the ld. AO did not know the status of the assessee and based on that aspect, he assumed jurisdiction. The ld. AO also reported that the assessee was having the opportunity to challenge the jurisdiction within time limit. He went on further that since the assessee failed to do so, after completing the assessment proceedings, the assessee cannot take liberty to challenge the jurisdiction. As regards the service of notice the ld. AO submitted that “In this matter, limitation to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act was going to be expired on 31.03.2022. Accordingly, notice was issued to the assessee through the ITBA system on 30.03.2022 itself. In this regard, a copy of a system generated note sheet showing the chronological events of the assessment proceedings of this case are enclosed herewith. The entry dated 30.03.2022 appearing in the note sheet shows that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2022. As such, the minimum requirement to initiate the reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act fulfils appropriately.” The ld. AO as regards the service of notice relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. 12.2 The assessee in the paper book filed submitted copy of pass port which was valid from 16.03.2015 to 13.03.2025 and place of issue is Dubai (APB-18), at page 20 the details of old passport and place of issue shows Dubai. At page 17 of the paper book the jurisdictional details of the assessee is filed it shows the “Circle (Intl.Tax), Jaipur. Thus, the ld. AO while sending this report based on the submission has not controverted this aspect of the matter which establishes that the residential status of the assessee is undisputedly NRI as on the date of issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Thus, based on this evidence placed on record and the same being not controverted we are of the considered view that when the assessee is non-resident as on the date of issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The bench further noted from order sheet entry dated 16.03.2023 that Faceless Assessment Unit (FAU) requested through NaFAC to transfer out this case from them because the 862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. case is of non-resident individual or of a foreign company and can be assessed only at international charge. Thus, the contention raised by the assessee has already been observed by the FAU in the assessment proceeding when the case was transmitting from ITO, Ajmer to FAU. In the light of these facts we are of the considered view that the ITO, Ward-2(2), Ajmer has no jurisdiction when the notice u/s. 148 was issued on 30.03.2022. Therefore, the in order to sustain the validity of the reassessment, a reassessment notice is required to be issued by an Assessing Officer having proper jurisdiction over the assessee to whom such notice has been issued. Based on the evidence placed on record and after giving sufficient time to the revenue to rebut the contention based on the set of evidence placed on record, but revenue could not demonstrate that when the notice issued on 30.03.2022, ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer, has valid jurisdiction. In the light of this fact, we quash the order of the assessment and ground no. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 8.4 The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in the case of Shri Subhash Chand Ajmera vs. ITO ward 1(4) Jaipur in dated 30.01.2020 has decided identical issue by observing in para 6 to 11 as under :-

“6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In this case, the reasons were recorded by the ITO ward-1(4), Jaipur dated 23.03.2015 stating that the deceased assessee had sold land at village Mathuradaspura, Ramgarh Road, Jaipur and received a sum of Rs. 53,00,000/- and such land falling with the prescribed limit of municipality area and provisions of capital gains are applicable on such sale of land. The assessee had not filed his return of income and also not paid tax on sale of immovable property and therefore, there are reasons to believe that the income to the extent of Rs. 53,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and accordingly permission of the JCIT, Range-1, Jaipur was sought and which was granted on 24.03.2015 and thereafter, notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2015 in name of Shri Subhash Ajmera, legal Heir of late Shri Tarachand Ajmera.

8. The answer to the said question is not hard to find and the same has been given by ITO Ward 1(4) where she has admitted that she doesn’t have the jurisdiction over the matter and jurisdiction lies with ITO Ward 2(1), Jaipur as clear from the letter No. ITO/W-1(4)/JPR/15-16 dated 21.03.2015 written by ITO, Ward 1(4), Jaipur to the Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur and the contents thereof reads as under:- “No./ITO/W-1(4)/JPR/15-16 Dated 21.04.2015 To, The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Jaipur (Through proper channel) Sir, Sub:- Pending assessment for A.Y 2008-09 u/s 148 in the case of Late Sh. Tarachand Ajmera (Legal Heir Shri Subhash Ajmera- PAN AATPA4912G), 3659, Bhoot Ke Kuven Ki Gali, Moti Singh Bhomio Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur – PAN AATPA4923B- Kindly refer to the above mentioned subject. An information from Dy. DIT (Inv.)-II, Jaipur was received on 23.03.2015 in the case of Shri Tarachand Ajmera PAN – AATPA4923B, 3659 Bhoot Ke Kuye Ki Gali, MSB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur, that assessee has sold two properties viz. D-43, Subhash Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur and Plot No. 6 Civil Lines Jaipur during the Financial year 2007-08 and cheques amounting to Rs. 33,00,000/- and 20,00,000/- received by him on 14.05.2007. On the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.)-II, Jaipur, Notice u/s 148 for A.Y. 2008- 09 was issued to assessee on 26.03.2015. Shri Subhash Ajmera is also assessed in Ward-2(1), Jaipur. You are requested to kindly transfer the PAN- AATPA4923B of Late Shri Tarachand Ajmera in Ward-2(1), Jaipur as the jurisdiction over the case lies with ITO, Ward-2(1), Jaipur. Yours Faithfully, 862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Jaipur”

9. In light of above, it is clear that ITO Ward 1(4), Jaipur herself has stated that the jurisdiction over the case does not lie with her but with ITO Ward 2(1), Jaipur. The aforesaid communication has been written to the Pr. CIT very next month of issuance of notice on 26.03.2015. Apparently, there was no further communication from the office of ld Pr. CIT and PAN of the deceased assessee was not transferred to ITO Ward 2(1) and continues with ITO Ward 1(4) and having issued the notice u/s 148, she continued with the proceedings and passed the assessment order u/s 147 read with 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, even though notice has been issued by ITO, Ward 1(4), Jaipur but once she is clear that the jurisdiction over the matter lies with ITO, Ward 2(1), Jaipur, merely because the permission has not been received from the ld. Pr. CIT for transfer of PAN, she cannot proceed and pass the assessment order in absence of requisite jurisdiction at first place which is governed by last known residence Sh. Subhash Chand Ajmera, Jaipur Vs. The ITO, Ward 1(3), Jaipur address of the deceased assessee as mandated by section 124(1)(b) of the Act. The fact that jurisdiction over last known residence address of the deceased assessee lies with ITO Ward 2(1), Jaipur is also corroborated by the assessment order passed for same assessment year 2008-09 in case of the legal Heir, Shri Subhash Chand Ajmera who happens to share the same residential address as that of the deceased assessee and which is passed by ITO Ward 2(1), Jaipur. Therefore, where there is no dispute that the jurisdiction over the deceased assessee lies with ITO Ward 2(1), Jaipur, the assessment order passed by ITO Ward 1(4) cannot be sustained and set-aside for want of requisite jurisdiction.

11. In light of above discussions, we are of the considered view that jurisdiction over the deceased assessee lies with the ITO, Ward 1(4), Jaipur and for want of requisite jurisdiction, assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with 147 by ITO, Ward 2(1), Jaipur deserves to be set aside.”

9. In view of the facts discussed herein above and following the judicial precedents as laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts and the Coordinate Benches decisions, supra, we are of the considered view that the assessment order deserves to be set aside.

862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. 10. Given that we have set aside the assessment order, other grounds raised by the assessee on merits of the case have become infructuous and are not adjudicated upon. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

ITA No. 862/JPR/2025 :

“We are filing appeal under 246A of Income of act 1961 so kindly keep in abeyance the penalty proceeding till the conclusion of appeal. We will submit form 35 for your kind perusal.” The reply of the assessee was considered by the AO but could not be verified as no such Form 35 was filed by the assessee for the AY 2015-16. Thereafter, the AO issued show cause notices dated 22.11.2023 and 13.02.2024 but the assessee failed to comply with the statutory notices. The AO, thereafter, completed the penalty proceedings holding that the assessee has concealed particulars of his income and levied penalty of Rs. 18,55,307/- under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that the assessee has neither complied with the notices issued by him nor submitted any documentary evidence in support of his case. Now, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds mentioned herein above.

862/JPR/2025 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed.