PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

5. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:

DECISION: It could be seen that the appellant was given adequate opportunities by way of notices issued as narrated above. However, the appellant/AR has refrained from submitting response/submission during the entire appellate proceedings. If the appellant claims that the assessment order was objectionable or bad in law, he should have provided the supporting evidences. The appellate proceedings are first line of remedy to those who think that the injustice has been done by the AO. However, the appellant failed to avail the same by simply not complying the various hearing notices issued. The appellant was duly informed about the enablement of communication window through which the appellant can voluntarily submit any submission/communication at any time but the same was not availed by the appellant. So, in the absence of the written submission and evidence, it remains unexplained as to how the order contended in this appeal is erroneous or bad in law. Therefore, it can be assumed that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his own appeal. Before making any conclusion let me surface the relevant part of the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court which is rendered in the case of Anil Goel Vs CIT, [2008] 306 ITR 212 (Punjab & Haryana). The Hon'ble High Court in that case has held as under:

"4. It is thus obvious on the plain language of section 250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly fixed. The assessee was also given notice along with notice to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had ample opportunity to make his submissions by appearing in person or through authorised representative Despite fixing the case for seventeen hearings, no one had put in appearance nor any justifiable reason for adjournment was given.

5. The Tribunal also found that non-recording of reasons in support of order passed by CIT(A) would not amount to committing any illegality because the CIT(A) has adopted the reasoning advanced by the Assessing Officer and has upheld his order. The judgment of this Court, in the case of Popular Engineering Co. v. ITAT (2001) 248 ITR 5771, has been rightly relied upon wherein it has been observed that elaborate reasons need not be recorded by the CIT(A) as has been done by the Assessing Officer. The reasons are required to be clear and explicit indicating that the authority has considered the issue in controversy. If the appellate/revisional authority has to affirm such an order it is not required to give separate reasons which may be required in case the order is to be reversed by the appellate/revisional authority."

Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO It could be seen from the plain reading of the above decision that in the absence of any document/evidences, no separate reasons needs to be recorded by the appellate authority for affirming the order of the AO. It is evident that the appellant during the appellate proceedings failed to furnish documentary evidences/proper explanation in support of his contention. So in view of aforesaid facts I am not in a position to take a divergent view from the findings of the AO. Hence, the action taken by the AO appears to be in order. Accordingly, I uphold the following additions made by the AO (1) Unexplained Investment u/s 69 of the Act. Rs. 21,55,788/- Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed.

6. As the assessee did not find any favour, from the appeal so filed before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal on the ground as reproduced hereinabove. To support the various grounds so raised by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee, has filed the written submissions in respect of the various grounds raised by the assessee and the same is reproduced herein below:

1. Appellant is a resident individual and filed his return of income, u/s 139 of the Act, for the current year, on 09.11.2013 declaring therein aggregate income of Rs. 1,95,020/-. The aggregate income consisted total income of Rs. 1,60,270/- and agriculture income of Rs. 34,750/-.

2. An information was received, by the Ld. AO, relating to purchase of immovable property, by the appellant, during the year.

3. Thereafter, reasons were recorded and, after getting approval (PBP: 1 – 5) from the Ld. PCIT – III, Jaipur on 29.03.2019, case of the appellant was re- opened u/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2019 (PBP:6). 4. The appellant submitted the return, on 16.10.2019, in compliance to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act manually due to technical issue on the income tax portal. Copy of screenshot of error and ITR is placed at PBP: 7 – 18.

Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO 5. Notice u/s 142(1) were issued whereby certain documents/ information were sought by the Ld. AO. The appellant submitted his reply in response to said notice.

6. Consequently, order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was passed on 09.11.2019 wherein total addition of Rs. 21,55,788/- was made, on account of unexplained investment, u/s 69 of the Act.

7. Aggrieved with the assessment order, appellant filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi who upheld the assessment order and confirmed the addition of Rs. 21,55,788/- u/s 69 of the Act vide order dated 06.10.2023.

8. Aggrieved with the appellate order, the appellant is before the Hon’ble Bench.

Ground of Appeal No.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Ld.AO of initiating the assessment proceeding u/s 147 in the case of the appellant. The initiation is against statutory provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, deserves to be quashed.

Ground of Appeal

No. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Ld.AO of making impugned addition made in order u/s 143(3)/147 dated 06.10.2023. The addition is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other statutory reasons. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Submission A. Initiation of assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is void:

1. The appellant filed his return on income, u/s 139 of the Act, on 09.11.2013 and the same was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act on 05.01.2014.

3. However, in the instant case, the Ld. AO while recording the reasons noted therein, not one time but multiple times, that the appellant had ‘No PAN’ and ‘no return of income was filed by the appellant for the year under consideration’. Kindly refer PBP: 3, 4 and 5.

4. A perusal of the assessment order itself shows that the appellant had filed income tax return u/s 139 of the Act. In this regard, attention is invited to the opening paragraph, at page 2, of the assessment order wherein the Ld. AO himself noted that the return of income was filed, u/s 139 of the Act, by the appellant on 09.11.2013. Further, reference is also drawn to the income tax portal where such return is reflected as filed u/s 139 of the Act.

Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO 5. Further, since the Ld. AO was satisfied that no return of income was filed by the appellant, the assessment of the appellant was framed under clause (a) of Explanation 2 of Section 147 of the Act meaning thereby the current case was deemed to be the case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. However, the facts of the appellant are contrary to what has been mentioned in the reasons recorded.

6. Considering the above submission, it is clear that the Ld. AO recorded reasons on wrong facts and acquire the jurisdiction, to open the case of the appellant, under wrong provisions of section 147 of the Act and did not apply his mind to the material on record.

7. The approval, by the Ld. PCIT – III, Jaipur was also obtained by the Ld. AO with reference to clause (a) of Explanation 2 of Section 147 of the Act. Such provision does not even applicable on the appellant since return of income, u/s 139, has been filed by the appellant for the year under consideration. Therefore, the said approval was also given on those incorrect facts, reasons and provision of Act which clearly reflects non-application of mind of the Ld. PCIT – III, Jaipur.

8. Please note that it is well settled Law that validity of re-assessment proceedings is to be examined with reference to the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. Further, it is also well settled l aw that if wrong facts and wrong reasons are recorded for reopening of the assessment, reopening of the assessment would be invalid and bad in Law.

9. From the above facts and submission, it is clear that neither the Ld. AO nor the sanctioning authority applied his mind to the material available on record while recording reasons/ giving approval and for arriving at the conclusion that the income had escaped the assessment.

10. For the reasons narrated above, it is evident that reasons recorded, by the Ld. AO, for exercising the jurisdiction is affected with several defects of critical nature. Therefore, invocation of Section 147 of the Act, in the current case is illegal and arbitrary due to lack of jurisdiction, defects in reasons recorded and mechanical approval. Accordingly, the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are deserves to be quashed.

11. In this regard, we rely on the following case laws: � Sagar Enterprises vs. ACIT, (2001) 257 ITR 335 (Guj.) " that it was apparent that the fact of non-filing of the return for the assessment year 1991-92 had weighed with the respondent for arriving at the satisfaction about the failure on the part of the assessee and escapement of assessment of income. However, the material on record showed that the return had been filed. In such circumstances, it could not be said with certainty as to which fact would have weighed with the officer concerned and once it was shown that an irrelevant fact Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO had been taken into consideration, to what extent the decision was vitiated would be difficult to say. Moreover the Income-tax Officer had stated that the payment which was stated to be undisclosed income relevant for the assessment year 1991- 92 could have been made during the financial year 1990-91 relevant to the assessment year 1991-92 and hence, "to cover up that probability, protective addition was made in the assessment year 1992-93." The first appellate authority decided the appeal for the assessment year 1992-93 on January, 1996, and the reason had been recorded thereafter on August 18, 1997. The notice of reassessment was not valid and was liable to be quashed." � Shri Ram Mohan Rawat Vs ITO, order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in “Thus the reasons recorded by the AO for formation of belief that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment are based on two counts. One, the assessee has made bogus purchases and the second, that the purchases are not verifiable as the assessee has not filed the return of income. Thus the formation of belief is based on these two factual aspects that the assessee has made bogus purchases which are not verifiable as assessee has not filed the return of income. The reason for non verifiableness of the purchases made by the assessee due to non filing of the return of income as stated by the AO is absolutely incorrect and wrong and contrary to the record when the assessee has filed the return of income electronically on 29.10.2007. This fact was also subsequently accepted by the AO that the assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1). The second aspect of the reasons that the assessee has made bogus purchases is also not based on any enquiry or verification of record by the AO but this is simply reproduction of information received from the Investigation Wing. The said information is also incomplete as regards the details of the purchases and the parties from whom such purchases were made by the assessee. Thus the reasons recorded by the AO manifest that there is no application of mind and the averments as recorded in the reasons are very vague and general and rather inconsistent with the facts available on record so far as the filing of return of income by the assessee. The formation of belief on such incorrect and vague reasons would lead the reopening of the assessment as invalid." � Baba Kartar Singh Dukki Educational Trust Vs ITO, rendered by the Chandigarh ‘SMC’ Bench of the Tribunal, (2016) 158 ITR 965 (CHD)(TRIB) “Where Assessing Officer processed under section 143(1) returns of income filed by assessee for assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 and subsequently he reopened said assessments on sole basis that assessee had not filed returns for years preceding to assessment year 2004-05 and, therefore, its income having escaped assessment, reopening of assessment was on basis of suspicion and non- existent and incorrect facts and it was invalid" � Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Dr. Ajit Gupta vs. ACIT, 383 ITR 361 (Del); Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO B. Re-assessment, u/s 147, without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is invalid: Without prejudice to anything stated above and without any admission, it is humbly submitted as under:

1.

1. It is settled position of law that the once notice for reopening assessment u/s 148 of the Act is issued, the assessee is required to furnish return of income in response to such notice and such return is deemed to have filed under section 139 of the Act. Therefore, all the provisions specified u/s 139 of the Act comes into play to a return filed under section 148 of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 148 of the Act read as under: “(1)Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139:”

2. Further, the expression “so for as may be” used in section 148 of the Act has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of R Dalmia Vs. CIT reported in 236 ITR 480, as once the return filed u/s 148 of the Act then in making the assessment and the reassessment under section 147 of the Act, the provisions subsequent to the provision of section 139 of the Act have to be followed. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: “It is no doubt that assessments under section 143 and assessments and reassessments under section 147 are different, but in making assessments and reassessments under section 147 the procedure laid down in sections subsequent to section 139, including that laid down by section 144B, has to be followed”

3. From the above judgment, there remains no ambiguity that the procedural provisions for making the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act has to be followed while reassessment u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, it becomes mandatory upon the Revenue to ensure the service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act even in the assessment framed under section 147 of the Act. In support of this, we rely on the following judgements: � Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Lally Jacob v/s ITO reported in 197 ITR 439 held as under: “A reading of sections 147 and 148 makes it clear that, at any rate, an assessment for the first time made by resort to section 147 is a regular assessment. Section 148 enjoins the Income-tax Officer before making an assessment under section 147 to serve a notice on the assessee containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section (2) of section 139. The further provision in that section is very significant which provides that the aforesaid notice has to be Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO treated as if it is a notice under section 139(2) and that all the provisions of the Act shall apply to the subsequent procedure and the final assessment. In other words, the notice issued under section 148 has to be deemed to be a notice under section 139(2) and, if the other provisions of the Act have to be applied, an assessment in pursuance of that can be made only under section 143 or section 144. We were not shown any other provision by which the Income-tax Officer is authorised to make an order of assessment under the Act. The provisions contained in section 140A also give an indication that an assessment made in pursuance of a notice under section 148 is a regular assessment under section 143 or section 144, for section 140A(2) provides that any admitted tax paid in pursuance of section 140A(1) shall be deemed to have been paid towards the regular assessment under section 143 or section 144. It is pertinent to note that section 140A(1) deals with a return required to be furnished under section 139 or section 148. That makes the provision clear that an assessment made under section 147 also will be a regular assessment under section 143 or section 144. Accordingly, we hold that any assessment made for the first time by resort to section 147 will also be a regular assessment for the purpose of invoking section 217 of the Act. With great respect, we dissent from the view expressed in certain decisions referred to earlier in this judgment which take a contrary view."

4. In the current case, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 30.03.2019 (PBP: 6). Since the appellant was not able to file the return online in response to the notice issued u/s 148 as the system was showing error message “No online order found, please check and file manually”, the return, in response to section 148 was filed manually (PBP: 8 – 18) and intimated to the Ld. AO vide reply dated 16.10.2019 (PBP:19 – 21). The copy of the screenshot of reply and ITR uploaded on income tax portal is also enclosed and marked at PBP: 22. Accordingly, the Ld. AO was duty bound to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.

5. However, perusal of the assessment order clearly reflects that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued, to the appellant, under the current case. This fact also gain support from the e-proceedings portal containing details of complete assessment proceedings where there is no mention of issuance of notice 143(2) to the appellant for the year under consideration. Copy of screenshot of e-proceedings is attached with this written submission.

6. Please note that the requirement that a notice be issued u/s 143(2) is mandatory and the AO has no other option but to issue such notice before assuming the jurisdiction. Hence, on the ground of failure on the part of the Ld. AO to issue notice u/s 143(2), the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 deserves to be quashed and consequently addition made deserves to be deleted in full.

7. In Support of our contention, we rely upon the following case laws: � CIT vs Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC) “Since the facts on record are clear that no notice under section 143(2) was ever issued by the department, the findings rendered by the High Court and the Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO Tribunal and the conclusion arrived at were correct. There is no reason to take a different view in the matter.” � ACIT vs Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) “Search and seizure—Block assessment in search cases—Procedure—Sec. 158BC(b) does not provide for accepting the return as provided under s. 143(1)(a) so that the AO has to complete the assessment under s. 143(3) only— Omission on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice under s. 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable—CBDT Circular No. 717 dt. 14th Aug., 1999, is not binding on the Court” � PCIT vs Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. (Delhi HC) in ITA 887/2017 & ITA 888/2017 vide order dated 24.10.2017: “The wording of Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act, which is applicable in the present case, requires the AO to be satisfied on examining the return filed that prima facie the Assessee has „understated the income or has „computed excessive loss or has„ underpaid the tax in any manner . The AO has the discretion to issue a notice under Section 143 (2) if he considers it „necessary or expedient to do so. This exercise by the AO under Section 143 (2) of the Act is qualitatively different from the issuance of a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, which as noted hereinbefore, is in a standard proforma. The proposal to reopen an assessment under Section 147 of the Act is to be based on reasons to be recorded by the AO. Such reasons have to be communicated to the Assessee. However, merely because the Assessee participates in the proceedings pursuant to such notice under Section 148 of the Act, it does not obviate the mandatory requirement of the AO having to issue to the Assessee a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act before finalising the order of the reassessment." In the light of the above decision, this Court is of the opinion that the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. No substantial question of law arises. The appeals have to fail and are dismissed.” � PCIT vs Kamla Devi Sharma (Raj HC) in DBITA No.197/2018 vide order dated 10.07.2018: “5. In our considered opinion, the tribunal is bound by the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 448 (Delhi) and has rightly followed the same, which is not challenged.” � Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Mahendra Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Jaipur [ITA No. 654/JPR/2023] dated 25.03.2025 quashed the assessment order and held as under: “… Thus on the above legal position of law the notice under section 148 or proceedings under section 147/148 and consequent assessment order liable to be quashed.”

Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO � Ramakant Sharma, Jaipur vs ITO, Jaipur Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench vide order dated 05.01.2021 “In the present case, the assessee had filed return, though, after stipulated period of 30 days but before finalization of assessment and in case the A.O. had found that there were problems with the return which required explanation by the assessee, then the A.O. ought to have followed up with a notice U/s 143(2) of the Act. However, no notice U/s 143(2) of the Act was issued which is mandatory requirement in reopen procedure and in our view issuance of notice U/s 143(2) is mandatory in reassessment proceedings initiated U/s 148 of the Act which has also been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alpine Electronics Asia PTE Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had also reached to the conclusion after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra). Wherein at para 24 of the judgment, their Lordship has held that Section 143(2) was applicable to a proceedings U/s 147/148 of the Act also. Since, in the present case, no notice U/s 143(2) of the Act was issued or served, therefore, in our view, it relates all the subsequent proceedings as invalid. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and quash the reassessment proceedings initiated U/s 147 of the Act and allow grounds No. 3 and 4 of the appeal. Since, we have quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated in the case of assessee, therefore, there is no need to adjudicate the other issues raised in grounds No. 1,2 and 5 to 13 of the said appeal." In view of above decision by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings, where the reassessment proceedings have been quashed and all subsequent proceedings have been held as invalid, the present penalty proceedings too doesn't survive and deserve to be set-aside. In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed.” � Smt. Gyatri Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward-Bundi ITA No. 461/JP/2018, Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench vide order dated 21.12.2020. � Shri Govind Narain Johari, Jaipur vs DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur ITA No. 501/JP/2015, Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench vide order dated 12.04.2022

Ground of Appeal

No.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Ld.AO in rejecting source of investment in purchase of plot for Rs.21,55,788/- being out of gift received from father Shri Mangi Lal Choudhary and Grand Father Shri Gopi Ram Choudhary and other sources. The rejection so made is contrary to the provision of law and facts, therefore deserves to be deleted in full. Ground of Appeal

No.

4. Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Ld.AO in making addition of Rs. 21,55,788/- being purchase of plot of land, u/s 69 treating it as an unexplained investment. The addition so made is contrary to the law and facts, unjustified, and excessive and deserves a complete deletion.

Ground of Appeal

No.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing an ex-parte order dated 06.10.2023 without appreciating the facts of the case. The impugned order is against principle of natural justice and deserves to be quashed.

Finding of the Ld.AO: Para 2 at page 2 of the assessment order: 2. Further, in order to complete the proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 09.09.2019 and 27.09.2019 fixing the case for hearing on 07.10.2019. In compliance to the notice, the AR of the assessee attended on 09.10.2019 and filed the copy of gift declaration of Sh. Mangi Lal Choudhary for Rs.15,00,000/- and Sh. Gopi Ram Choudhary for Rs.5,00,000/- who is father and Grand Father of the assessee. She mentioned that assessee purchased a land in joint owner ship in which the assessee share was of Rs.21,55,788/- and for the source of investment, she filed the copy of gift deed. Vide order sheet dated 09.10.2019 , the AR of the assessee specifically asked to produce the source of income of the father and grand father, copy of ITR, copy of bank pass book and other details by which the genuineness of gift may be proved. Para 2.2 at page 3 of the assessment order: 2.2 On examination of the reply / documents filed by the AR of the assessee, it is noticed that she failed produce the source of income of assessee father and grand father.As per copy of Jamabandi filed by AR of the assessee, the Grand Father of assessee, was having 08 Bigha Land only. Except the same, no any proof related to their income is submitted. During the year, the assessee has sold two plots but the same was sold after the purchase of above mentioned such land. Therefore the assessee failed to produce the source of investment as well as he failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the donor. Even it is also not explained that on which occasion the gift was given to the assessee. It is the duty of the assessee to establish the genuineness of gift, hence he failed to discharged his burdon of proof. In view of the facts of the case, the assessee failed to explain the source of investment of Rs.21,55,788/- for purchase of land,therefore it remained unexplained.” Finding of the Ld. CIT(A) Last Para 2.2 at page 4 of the order

“… It could be seen from the plain reading of the above decision that in the absence of any document/evidences, no separate reasons needs to be recorded by the appellate authority for affirming the order of the AO. It is evident that the appellant Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO during the appellate proceedings failed to furnish documentary evidences/proper explanation in support of his contention. So in view of aforesaid facts I am not in a position to take a divergent view from the findings of the AO. Hence, the action taken by the AO appears to be in order…” Submission: A. Nature and source of Investment is fully explained:

1. 1. Since there is no dispute with regard to the nature of investment, therefore, for the purpose of present appeal, our submission is confined solely to the source of investment only.

2. The appellant, on 17.08.20211, purchased property located at Khasra No. 379 to 388, 393 to 396, 400, 405, 221/631, 375, 402 in co-ownership with other individuals for a total consideration of Rs. 1,08,36,000/-. Out of this, the appellant, individual share of investment amounted to Rs. 21,55,788/- in the above stated property.

3. During the assessment proceedings, appellant was called upon to explain the source of investment in said property. In repose to which, the appellant, submitted the details and stated the source of investment in such property to be cash gift, of Rs. 15,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/-, received from his father: Shri Mangi Lal Choudhary and his Grand Father: Shri Gopi Lal Choudhary respectively. In support of the above explanation, copies of respective gift deeds (PBP: 24 – 25) were also submitted.

4. The Ld. AO, however, was not fully satisfied with the explanation of the appellant and asked the appellant to further produce the source of income of the appellant’s father: Shri Mangi Lal Choudhary and his Grand Father: Shri Gopi Lal Choudhary. In compliance, the appellant submitted copy of Jamabandi (PBP: 26 – 30) of agriculture land belonging to his Grand Father: Shri Gopi Lal Choudhary. Since the appellant did not submit any documentary proof (other than Jamabandi), as he was not required to, the Ld. AO added the investment of Rs. 21,55,788/- in the income of the appellant by invoking Section 69 of the Act.

5. Considering above background, the appellant respectfully submits that provisions of Section 69 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the current case. For ease of reference, the appellant reproduces below the provisions of Section 69 of the Act: “Unexplained investments.

69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year”.

6. Perusal of the above provision shows that it may be invoked if the following conditions are fulfilled: a) The assessee must have made investment in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year; b) The investments made are not recorded in the books, if any, maintained by the assessee or any source of income; c) The assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the AO satisfactory.

7. Since the condition enumerated in point 6(a) and 6(b) are not relevant to the current case, the appellant make his submission on point 6(c). In the current case, the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) had not objected to the fact that the appellant had received cash gift of Rs. 20,00,000/- and the same has been investment in the property purchased jointly by the appellant during the year under consideration. The only objection was regarding the source of source.

8. Here it is apposite to note that the source of investment i.e. gift was well supported by the gift deeds executed by appellant’s Father: Shri Mangi Lal Choudhary and his Grand Father: Shri Gopi Lal Choudhary. The said gift deed was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper wherein appellant’s Father and Grand Father clearly stated the nature of gift, reason for such gift, PAN and the source of such cash gift. 9. By furnishing the gift deeds along with relevant information contained therein, the appellant duly discharged his primary liability to prove the source of investment. It is noteworthy that it is a settled legal position that once the assessee submits evidence in support of the source of investment, his ‘onus to proof’ is discharged. 10. Despite this, the Ld. AO proceeded to make the addition merely based on suspicion without bringing on record any material evidence to rebut the appellant’s explanation or to suggest that the explanation of the appellant is not satisfactory. It is a well-settled legal principle that the opinion of the AO u/s 69 of the Act must be founded on concrete evidence or material facts and it cannot rest merely on conjecture, assumption, or suspicion. 11. Furthermore, can the appellant be reasonably expected to bear the onus of proving the "source of source" in relation to the donor(s), particularly when the donors themselves have clearly explained the source of the gift? In this regard, reference is made to the gift deeds submitted by the appellant, wherein both the appellant's Father and Grand Father explicitly stated that the source of the gifts was derived from the sale of agricultural land and savings from agricultural income, respectively.

Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO 12. As far as the contention of the Ld. AO, in para 2.2 at page 3 of the order, is concerned where the Ld. AO stated that the appellant “Even it is also not explained that on which occasion the gift was given to the assessee”. As against this contention, it is to be noted that the occasion for making the gifts are not at all relevant since neither the Income Tax Act nor The Gift Tax Act mandates that the gift must be received on some occasion. Therefore, gifts received by the appellant cannot be questioned on the ground of ‘occasion’ and the Ld. AO Officer cannot make this a ground to reject the explanation of the appellant.

Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO 1. The decisive factor, in determining whether the explanation of the appellant, with regard to the source of the investment, was satisfactory or not rested, by the Ld. AO and CIT(A), on the evidence to prove the source of income of appellant’s father: Shri Mangi Lal Choudhary and his Grand Father: Shri Gopi Lal Choudhary.

2. It is the contention of the Ld. AO that since the appellant failed to produce the source of source i.e. source of income of appellant’s father: Shri Mangi Lal Choudhary and his Grand Father: Shri Gopi Lal Choudhary, the explanation offered by the appellant is not ‘proper’ and such investment is liable to be taxed u/s 69 of the Act (kindly refer point no. 3.1 at page 3 of the assessment order). This contention specifies that while the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) had not outrightly rejected the explanation offered by the appellant, they deemed it ‘improper’ solely on the ground that the appellant failed to explain source of income of appellant’s father: Shri Mangi Lal Choudhary and his Grand Father: Shri Gopi Lal Choudhary.

4. A careful reading of the above provision shows that there is neither any statutory requirement nor any onus on the assessee to prove the source of source u/s 69 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that it is a settled legal precedent that neither any word can be added in the statute, nor the scope of statute can be enlarged when the language is plain, clear and unambiguous. In this context, we rely on the following judgements: � CIT vs. Motors & General Stores Ltd. 66 ITR 692 (SC) – No tax can be imposed on the subject without words in the Act clearly showing an intention to lay a burden upon him. In other words, the subject cannot be taxed unless he comes within the letter of the law, and not merely the spirit of the law. � In the case of Sri Jeyaram Educational Trust & Ors., v. A.G.Syed Mohideen & Ors. reported in 2010 CIJ 273 SC (1), it is held as under: "6. It is now well settled that a provision of a statute should have to be read as it is, in a natural manner, plain and straight, without adding, substituting or omitting any words. While doing so, the words used in the provision should be assigned and ascribed their natural, ordinary or popular meaning. Only when such plain and straight reading, or ascribing the natural and normal meaning to the words on such reading, leads to ambiguity, vagueness, uncertainty, or absurdity which were not obviously intended by the Legislature or the Lawmaker, a court should open its interpretation tool kit containing the settled rules of construction and interpretation, to arrive at the true meaning of the provision. While using the tools of interpretation, Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO the court should remember that it is not the author of the Statute who is empowered to amend, substitute or delete, so as to change the structure and contents. A court as an interpreter cannot alter or amend the law. It can only interpret the provision, to make it meaningful and workable so as to achieve the legislative object, when there is vagueness, ambiguity or absurdity. The purpose of interpretation is not to make a provision what the Judge thinks it should be, but to make it what the legislature intended it to be."

6. Further, the real intention of the legislature must be gathered from the language used in the statute and attention is to be given on what has been said as well as what has not been said. If the legislature wanted to add this condition to prove source of source in Section 69 of the Act, it would have added the same just like it added it subsequently in Section 68 of the Act. Hence, when the same had not been done, the Ld. AO cannot presume it to be there and make the addition based on such non-existing condition. In this regard, we rely on the following judgement: � The Hon‘ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Tara Agencies [2007] 292 ITR 444 (SC), relied on several earlier rulings such as Union of India vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 323 and Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. vs. Custodian of Vested Forests 1990 (Suppl) SCC 785 and observed as under: “61. Since the Legislature in its wisdom has not used the term 'processing' in section 35(1)(B) of the Act, it would be erroneous to incorporate the word in the section and then interpret the Statute. In this view of the matter Chowgule& Co. (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) and Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co.'s case (supra) dealt with by this court in Chowgule& Co. (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) are clearly distinguishable because of the language of the statutes.”

7. Accordingly, since the appellant was statutory required to prove only source and not required to explain/ prove the source of source, the addition made on this ground deserves to be deleted under the current case.

Ground of Appeal

No.

6. That the appellant craves your indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of the hearing. In view of above, the appellant most humbly prays for justice.

7. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records:

S.No. Particulars PBP 1. Copy of Approval, by Ld. PCIT-III, Jaipur, containing Reasons Recorded by 1-5 Ld. AO 2 Copy of Notice issued u/s 148 of the Act; 6 3 Copy of the screenshot of error message while filing ITR in response to 7 Section 148 of the Act; 4 Copy of ITR filed in response to notice u/s 148; 8-18 5 Copy of Reply dated 16.10.2019 19-21 6 Copy of screenshot of reply dated 16.10.2019 and ITR uploaded on Income 22 Tax Portal; 7 Copy of Note sheet; 23 8 Copies of Gift Deeds; 24-25 9 Copy of Jamabandi of Gopi Ram Choudhary 26-30

Covering that aspect the assessee also filed a letter dated 16.10.2019 [ page 19]. He also submitted that since the ITR was filed the required notice u/s. 143(2) was also not issued and therefore, the assessment made is also required to be questioned on that reason also.

9. The ld DR is heard who relied on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR also filed a report of the ld. AO which reads as under :

Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO Sub:-Written submission in the case of Shri Pramod Kumar Choudhary (BACPC48280) for A.Y. 2012-13 pending before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench ( )-regarding.

Kindly refer to your good office letter No. Addl.CIT(Sr.DR-III)/ITAT/JPR/2025- 26/358 dated 26.06.2025 on the subjected cited above.

In the case of Shri Pramod Kumar Choudhary (BACPC48280), on possession of information regarding purchase of immovable property, notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2019 after obtaining prior approval of the competent authority. Vide the notice dated 30.03.2019 issued u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee was required to furnish the return of income within 30 days from the service of that notice The notice was served upon the assessee through registered post No. RL A RR209059661IN

Subsequently, the assessment order was finalized u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act on 09.11.2019 at total assessed income of Rs.23,31,500/- and agricultural income of Rs. 34,750/-While finalizing the assessment, the assessing officer made addition of Rs.21.55.788/-treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.

Aggrieved of the addition, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ed. CIT(A), The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the he did not furnish documentary evidences/proper explanation in support of his contention during the course of appellate proceeding.

Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench tarpur vite appeal No. 206/JPR/2025 and submitted the paper book. The issue wise comments are as under

"In this case, return of income was filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) of the income to Act 1981 on 09.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 1,60,270/- and agriculture income of Rs 34,750/-. Subsequently, on possession of information regarding purchase of an immovable assets during the year by the assessee, necessary reasons were recorded and after obtaining approval of Pr. CIT-3, Jaipur on 29 03 2019, the case was re-opened and notice u/s 148 was issued on Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO 30.03.2019 which was served upon the assessee through Regd. Post and the assessee was required to furnish return of income within the stipulated time but compliance of the same was not made."

Comments in this regard, it is submitted that the information was passed on by the DIT (I&CI), Jaipur for taking appropriate action in the case of Shri Pramod Kumar Choudhary for A.Y. 2012-13 where the PAN of the assessee was not mentioned in the information. In absence of the PAN of the assessee, the return filed u/s 139 could not be inquired on the system. Therefore, reasons were recorded without PAN for re-opening the case u/s 148 of the Act. contains that assessee has not filed his ITR.

Further, during the course of assessment proceeding, the Ld. AR provided the PAN of the assessee and the order was passed showing PAN i.e. BACPC4828D, therefore, the AO has mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act as the same was available to the AO on the E-filing portal account of the assessee Therefore, it cannot be said that the facts mentioned in the reasons recorded for re-opening the case and assessment order passed on 09.11.2019 are different. Thus, the contention raised by the assessee on this issued is not maintainable.

2 Furthermore, the AR of the assessee has claimed that the assessee has filed the Return of Income against the notice u/s 148 manually. But, notice u/s 143/2) of the Income-tax Act has not been issued and served upon the assessee. The Hon'ble Bench has requested to submit any proof of Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act served to the Assessor,

Comments: In this regard, it submitted that in the case of the assessee, notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 was issued on 30.03.2019 after olitaining prior approval of the competent authority and the assessee was required to furnish the return of income within 30 days from the service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee has not filed his ITR in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act within the stipulated time. However, the Id. AR of the assessee has enclosed the copy of manual return of income u/s 148 vide reply dated 09.10.2019 which was late for more than 06 Months from issue of such notice.

Further, the manual return so furnished by the assessee is not signed & verified by the assessee declaring solemnly that the information given in the return and schedules were correct and complete and the amount of total income and other particulars shown therein were truly stated by the assessee. Therefore, it seems Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO that the manual return submitted by t the assessee not a valid return. The Ld. AR of the assessee also attached the copy of computation of income for the year under consideration in which total income has been shown at Rs.1,75,710/- which has been considered by the AO while computing the income of the assessee in the assessment order.

As regard any proof of Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act served to the assessee, it is submitted that on going through the case record of the assessee, there is no record available for issue and service of such notice.

Thereafter, reasons to believe were recorded and approval of Ld. PCIT-III, Jaipur was obtained by the Ld. AO (PBP: 1 – 5). While recording the reasons the ld. AO mentioned that the assessee had ‘No PAN’ and ‘no return of income was filed by the appellant for the year under consideration which is placed on record at page 3 to 5. Contrary to that in the assessment order itself reveals that the assessee had filed income tax return u/s 139 of the Act on 09.11.2013. We also take note from the paper book that income tax portal where such return is reflected as filed u/s 139 of the Act. In spite appellant, the assessment of the appellant was framed under clause (a) of Explanation 2 of Section 147 of the Act meaning thereby the current case was deemed to be the case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. However, the facts of the appellant are contrary to what has been mentioned in the reasons recorded. Thus, it is very clear that while recording the reasons ld. AO based on the wrong set of facts acquired the jurisdiction, to re-open the case and he did not apply his mind to the facts already on record. Even the approval, by the ld. PCIT – III, Jaipur was also obtained by the Ld. AO with reference to clause (a) of Explanation 2 of Section 147 of the Act. Such provision does not even applicable because the assessee filed his return of income, u/s 139. Thus, the reasons as well as approval was based contrary to the facts on record and thereby there is complete non-application of mind of ld. AO while recording the reasons and by the ld. PCIT – III, Jaipur while granting sanction. Therefore, invocation of Section 147 of the Act, in the current case is illegal and arbitrary due to lack of jurisdiction, defects in reasons recorded and mechanical approval.

Accordingly, the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are deserves to be quashed. We get support of our view from the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Court held that ;

5. However, there is one more aspect of the matter which requires to be taken into consideration. In the affidavit-in-reply, it is the say of the respondent himself that the said payment which is stated to be undisclosed income relevant for the assessment year 1991-92 could have been made during the financial year 1990-91 relevant to the assessment year 1991-92 and hence ‘to cover up that probability, protective addition was made in the assessment year 1992-93’. Thereafter, in the affidavit-in-reply, the respondent has further stated thus : "Hence, in the relevant case, addition of Rs. 17,98,500 was made in the assessment year 1992-93 on protective basis and substantial addition was required to be made in the assessment year 1991-92 and for that reopening under section 147 of the IT Act was initiated after recording reasons which are annexed hereto and marked Annexure 1".

On the hand revenue in the online module says “No online order fund, please check and file manually” [ page 7 of the paper book ] and on the other hand did not accept the ITR filed manually under a covering letter dated 16.10.2019.Thus, it is an accepted fact that the assessee filed ITR in response to notice u/s. 148 physically as there was technical glitches in the online platform. Therefore, passing the order without issue of statutory notice u/s 143(2) is invalid make the proceeding invalid. This issue is decided by the apex court in the case of CIT vs Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC) wherein the apex court held that ;

8. The impugned order when is adjudged in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon (Supra), no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

Based on the above two indiscretions we hold that the assessment order passed become invalid and therefore, the ground no. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on technical grounds the other grounds raised by the assessee become academic and thus left undecided.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 09/07/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 09/07/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Pramod Kumar Choudhary, Jaipur Pramod Kumar Choudhary vs. ITO 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 7(2), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 206/JP/2025) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत