Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which quashed the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The proceedings were based on information gathered from a search in a group concern case, where the assessee was alleged to have advanced unaccounted cash loans.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan had quashed similar notices issued under Section 148 in the context of search proceedings. Following this precedent and the fact that the AO had initiated proceedings under Section 153C, the Tribunal held that the assessment order under challenge was ineffective. Therefore, the grounds challenging the legality of notice under Section 148 were allowed.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment is sustainable when similar proceedings based on search materials were quashed by the High Court, and subsequent proceedings were initiated under Section 153C.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 153C, 143(2), 69, 132, 153A, 153D, 143, 149, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 53/JP/2025
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 53/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke Joint Commissioner of Income Ashok Parwal Vs. Tax (OSD), M-57, Mahesh Colony, Tonk Circle-04, Jaipur Phatak, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACJPO7256L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Vedant Agarwal, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT (th. V.C.) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 03/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 07/07/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
The present appeal is because the revenue dissatisfied with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur -5 dated 04/10/2024 [here in after ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2015-16. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arise as against the order dated 25.03.222 passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] by ACIT, Central Circle-04, Jaipur [ for short AO].
“(i) Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment proceedings based solely on the High Court judgment in DBCWP 18363/2019, without considering the unique facts and circumstances of the present case.
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) is justified in holding that notice u/s 148 is not sustainable legally relying upon the order of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court's order dated 19.03.2024 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019 and several other linked petitions wherein wrongly held that once there is incriminating material seized or requisitioned belonging or relatable to the person other than on whom search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to without giving any finding that issuance of notice under section 148 was incorrect. Thus, the CIT (A) is not justified in quashing notice issued u/s 148 of the Act.
(iii) Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in overturning the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the precedent set by the Hon. Supreme Court of India in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Circle 1(2) V/s. M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Private Limited (2022) 14 SCC 101. In light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the aforementioned case, the Learned CIT (A) should have upheld the issuance of the notice under Section 148, unless there were compelling reasons to deviate from the established legal precedent.
(iv) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceeding.”
At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 17 days in filing of the appeal by the revenue for which the ld. DR of the revenue has not filed an application for condonation of delay. Ld. DR submitted that though the approval was granted by the PCIT on 24.12.2024 but the appeal was filed online late. The delay is accidental and same be condoned in the interest of justice. The bench noted that it was the duty of that ld. AO has already sought approval in time to file an appeal from PCIT(Central), Jaipur on 24.12.2024 but same was filed on line late on 17.01.2025 for which the bench takes a lenient view of the matter but at the same time direct the ld. AO to adhere to timeline in future.
Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee has filed his return of income for A.Y 2015-16 on 28.08.2015 declaring total income 10,17,900/- the basis of information available with the Assessing Officer, the AO had reason to believe that in this case income is escaped to the tune of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- Hence, the proceeding u/s 147 was initiated in the case after recording reason. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 duly issued to the assessee on 30.03.2021 after obtaining approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur and served upon the assessee through ITBA/e-mail. on 30.03.202120, In compliance to the notice u/s 148 the assessee filed return of income on 20.01.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 10,17,900/-, same as original return. Accordingly. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Was issued the assessee on 25.01.2022. and request a copy of the reason recorded for reopening the case provided to the assessee. In responses to these notices, online responses on e-proceedings portal printouts, which are letter dated 07.02.2022 regarding reopening the case of the assessee by issuing Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act on 30.03.2021, which was placed on record. The objection filed by the assessee was duly disposed off on 21.02.2022 and 02.03.2022 abiding with the general directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd Vis, ITO & Others reported in 179 CTR (CS) 11, ITR 19 (SC) and 125 TAXMAN 963 (SC). Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire and show cause was issued to the assessee on 04.03.2022 through ITBA.
4.1 Record reveal that a search and seizure operation was carried out in the group concern of Ramesh Manihar. During the search proceedings and post search, various excel sheets were recovered and on the basis of analysis of the data in these excel sheets, it was found that the persons of the Ramesh Manihar group, Shri Ramesh Chand Maheshwari and Shri Manmohan Krishan Bagla were engaged as finance brokers for arranging cash loans between various borrowers and lenders which were not reflected in the books of accounts and that the brokerage received for such unrecorded cash transactions was also not offered for taxation by the group. Investigation has revealed that the figures mentioned in the seized pen drives was suppressed by five zeroes, i.e. a figure of "2,00,00,000/-". facts filed by them before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. Based on that information available with AO (ASHOK PARWAL -PAN: ACJPP7256L:
A.PARWAL as per data seized) have advanced unaccounted loans aggregating cash amount of Rs 2,00,00,000/- through Ramesh Manihar Group to the persons who was abbreviated as NA, RKB, LAXMANJI, RKB, LAXMANJI, GV AND OTHERS. Thus, the assessee was requested to show cause as to why unaccounted cash loan of 2,00,00,000/-cash- should not be added to total income by treating the same as income from undisclosed sources as per the provisions of section 69 of the IT Act, 1961.
Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 2 cr and interest thereon for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- in hands of the assessee.
5. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:
“4.2 Conclusion: I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- 4.2.1 A search & seizure action u/s132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out in the case of Ramesh Manihar Group on 07.01.2016. The information revealed that the group was indulged in cash loan finance on large scale. During the course of search, voluminous data comprising of excel sheets in 18 pen- JCIT vs. Ashok Parwal drives seized from the main office of the Ramesh Manihar Group at 303, Ratna Sagar, MSB Kaa Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur, which consisted details of cash loans financed by the Ramesh Manihar Group. The information further revealed that the persons of the Ramesh Manihar Group, being Shri Ramesh Chand Maheshwari and Shri Manmohan Krishan Bagla were engaged as finance brokers for arranging cash loans between various borrowers and lenders which were not reflected in the books of accounts and that the brokerage received for such unrecorded cash transactions was also not offered for taxation by the group. As per the information, investigation wing carried out an investigation and names of lender were identified out of the names which were recorded in the said data and it was established that the appellant was associated with the above group and had paid cash loans from undisclosed income and received interest income on these loans.
4.2.2 The information in respect of the appellant was forwarded by DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur to the jurisdictional AO. On receiving the information, AO has recorded reasons for escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the 1.T.Act, 1961 for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee after taking the necessary approval of the competent authority.
4.2.3 Considering the reply of the appellant and the facts of the case, the AO had passed an order u/s 147 of the 1.T.Act, 1961 vide order dated 25.03.2022 at the total income of Rs. 2,10,47,900/- considering the undisclosed cash loans of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and interest eamed of Rs. 30,000/- on these loans.
4.2.4 During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant has objected the proceedings initiated u/s147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and the order passed u/s 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and making additions on account of alleged cash loans and interest on cash loans. Appellant in his reply has also raised a questioned on issuance of notice under Section 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 where the case was re- opened on the basis of seized material during the search conducted on Ramesh Manihar Group.
4.2.5 Meanwhile, when the appellate proceedings were in progress in the present case, the Hon'ble High Court, Rajasthan has passed a common order dated 19.03.2024 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019 and several other linked petitions. These writ petitions were filed by the petitioners, whose cases were re- opened u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 on the basis of incriminating documents seized during the course of search proceedings in the case of Ramesh Manihar Group, Jaipur. In the above order Hon'ble High Court, Rajasthan has quashed the notices issued under Section 148 and the resultant assessment orders.
4.2.6 The findings of Hon'ble High Court, Rajasthan in the above order dated 19.03.2024 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019 and several other linked petitions are a under:
"23. The reasons supplied in case in hand for initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 are based on the incriminating material and documents including Pen Drives seized during the search carried out of the Manihar Group and the statements recorded during proceedings. From the information received the AO noticed that the loan advanced and interest earned thereon were unaccounted. In other words the basis for initiation of Section 148 proceedings is the material seized relating to or belonging to the petitioner, during the search conducted of Manihar Group 24. In the case where search or requisition is made, the AO under Section 153A mandatorily is required to issue notices to the assesses for filing of income tax return for the relevant preceding years. The AO assumes jurisdiction to assess/reassess total income by passing separate order for each assessment.
In cases of the person other than on whom search was conducted but material belonging or relating such person was seized or requisition, the AO has to proceed under Section 153C. The two pre-requisites are that the AO dealing with the assessee on whom search was conducted or requisition made, being satisfied that seized material belongs or relates to other assessee shall hand over it to AO having jurisdiction of such assessee. Thereafter, the satisfaction of AO receiving the seized material that the material handed over has a bearing for determination of total income of such other person for the relevant preceding years. On fulfillment of twin conditions the AO shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A.
Special procedure is prescribed under Section 153A to 1530 for assessment in cases of search and requisition. There cannot be a quibble with the proposition that the special provision shall prevail over the general provision. To say it differently the provisions of Section 153A to 1530 have prevalence over the regular provisions for assessment or reassessment under Section 143 & 147/148.
Section 153A and 153C starts with non-obstante clause. The procedure for assessment/reassessment in Section 153A, 153C in cases of search or requisition has an overriding effect to the regular provisions for assessment or reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153.
The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 1530 Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 1530, the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148.
The Department has not set up a case that for initiating proceedings under Section 148 it had material other than the material seized during the search of Manihar Group. The contention was that though the material with regard to unaccounted loan advanced by the petitioner was received, the earning of interest on unaccounted loan was derivation of the AO from the material received. The submission is that the derived conclusion cannot be acted upon under Section 153C. The submission lacks merit and shall defeat the concept of single assessment order for each of relevant preceding years for assessing total income in case of incriminating material found during search or requisition.
The argument that by enactment of Section 1534 to 1530 has not eclipsed Section 148 does not enhance the case of respondent to initiate the proceedings under Section 148. On fulfillment of two conditions for invoking Section 153C the proceeding in accordance with Section 1534 are to be initiated. The operating field of and Section 153A to 1530 and Section 148 are different Applicability of Section 153C in cases where the seized material related to or belonged to person other than on whom search is conducted or requisition made does not render Section 148 otlose. Section 148 shall continue to apply to the regular proceedings and also in cases where no incriminating material is seized during the search or requisition, 31. The other aspect of the matter is that under Section 1534 and 1530, the total income is to be assessed. The total income includes retumed income (if any), undisclosed income unearthed during the search or requisitioning and information possessed from the other sources. For Illustration: An assessee had retumed income of Rs. 100, undisclosed income of Rs.200 is unearthed during search and there is information from annual information statement of non-disclosure of income of Rs. 150/-, The AO under Section 1534 and 153C shall pass order dealing with income of Rs. 100+Rs.200+Rs.150, the total income being Rs 450/- In cases where there is no unearthing of undisclosed income of Rs. 200/-, the department can resort to proceeding under Section 147/148. 32. The argument that Section 153C can be invoked in case there is incriminating material for al the relevant preceding years and otherwise Section 148 is to be resorted to, is misplaced. On satisfaction of the twin condition for proceedings under Section 1530, the AO has to proceed in accordance with Section 1534. Notice is to be issued for filling of the retums for relevant preceding years and thereupon proceed to assessee or reassesses the total income. It is not obligatory on the AO to make assessment for all the years, the earlier orders passed may be accepted. But once there is incriminating material seized or requisitioned belonging or relatable to the person other than on whom search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to ………………. 40. In view of above discussion the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders are quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law."
4.2.7 In the above order Hon'ble High Court, Rajasthan has quashed the notices issued under Section 148 and the resultant assessment orders. As per the above judgement, in cases of the person other than on whom search was conducted but material belonging or relating such person was seized or requisition, the AO has to proceed under Section 153C of the Act instead of section 147/148 of the Act., as the proceedings in the relevant cases were initiated based on the incriminating material and documents including Pen Drives seized during the search carried out of in the case of Ramesh Manihar Group and the statements recorded during proceedings.
Further, as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Rajasthan, applicability of Section 1530 in cases where the seized material related to or belonged to person JCIT vs. Ashok Parwal other than on whom search is conducted or requisition made does not render Section 148 otiose. Section 148 shall continue to apply to the regular proceedings and also in cases where no incriminating material is seized during the search or requisition.
4.2.8 As per decision of Hon'ble High Court, Rajasthan in the above writ petition, it is clear that the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and the assessment order in the cases which were reopened on the basis of incriminating documents seized during the course of search in the case of Ramesh Manihar Group are quashed.
4.2.9 Considering the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the case of the appellant was also reopened u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 by the Id. AO on the basis of information of advancing of unaccounted cash loans by the appellant through the broker Sh. Ramesh Chand Maheshwari and on the basis of seized material during the course of search proceedings in the Ramesh Marlihar Group.
4.2.10 In the light of the above decision, as the facts of the present case are similar, hence the above judgement of Hon'ble High Court is squarely applicable in the present case of the appellant.
4.2.11 Accordingly, the order passed by the AO u/s 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 has become ineffective as on date as the Hon'ble High Court Rajasthan has quashed the notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and impugned orders in the cases which were re-opened on the basis of seized material during the course of search proceedings in the Ramesh Manihar Group.
4.2.12 In these circumstances, the assessment order u/s 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 under challenge in present appeal does not survive, the assessment order passed by the AO has become infructuous. Hence the ground of appeal challenging the legality of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is hereby allowed.
In view of the above discussion and the facts of the case, the argument of the appellant is acceptable.
Thus, grounds of appeal 1 & 3 are hereby allowed.
Since the additions do not survive on technical ground that notice u/s 148 of the Act is not sustainable legally, the other grounds of appeal on the merits of such addition are rendered only academic and do not warrant detailed adjudication.
In view of the discussion, the subject grounds of appeal no. 2 & 4 to 7 raised by the appellant are treated as disposed off.
JCIT vs. Ashok Parwal 6. The last Ground of Appeal is that the appellant craves his indulgence to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the grounds of appeals at any time before the final decision of the appeal. The appellant has not added or altered, amend or withdraw any of the above-mentioned grounds of appeal. Accordingly, such mention by the appellant in its ground is treated as general in nature, no needing any specific adjudication and is accordingly treated as disposed off.
7. In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed.
6. Feeling dissatisfied above the order of ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal on the grounds stated hereinabove. Apropos to the grounds so raised, ld.
DR representing the revenue that addition made by the ld. AO was based on the seized records. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court wherein the Delhi High Court has distinguished the case relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, he heavily relied upon the following paras in the case of decision delivered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Naveen Kumar Gupta [2024] 168 taxmann.com 574 (Delhi) which reads as under:-
“57. The aforesaid authorities clearly indicate that the purpose of a non obstante clause is to provide primacy to certain provisions of the enactment in case of conflict with the statutory provisions as mentioned in the clause. The non obstante clause indicates the provisions/ enactments, which are overridden and the main enactment that overrides those provisions. Thus, if a non obstante clause sets out an enabling provision or one that confers jurisdiction, as the main enactment, which is to override other provisions, it stands to reason that the overriding effect of that enactment will become operative only when the enabling provisions are used or the jurisdiction is assumed. In relation to an enabling provision, the non obstante clause can be construed to only mean that recourse to those provisions is available inspite of other provisions that are overridden. The non obstante provision, in such circumstances, cannot be construed to mean that recourse to a provision, which by nature is an enabling provision, is necessary and by implication, the other provisions in respect of which, the main enactment is JCIT vs. Ashok Parwal accorded primacy are inoperative and nugatory. Re-assessments under Section 153C of the Act and under Section 147/148 of the Act provide a machinery provision for reassessments in giver circumstances.
In a case where pursuant to search conducted under Section 132 of the Act or requisition made under Section 132A of the Act in respect of another person (searched person), assets, documents or books of account, which either belong to the assessee or contain information pertaining to the said assessee, are found And, the same are handed over to the AO of the assessee, he would subject to satisfaction of the other jurisdictional conditions stipulated under Section 153C of the Act, having the jurisdiction to make a reassessment/assessment of the income of the assessee under Section 153C of the Act. However, the same does not mean that he is bound to exercise the said jurisdiction. In the event, the AD does not assume it's jurisdiction to proceed with making an assessment reassessment under Section 153C of the Act, recourse to Section 147/148 is not ousted. The non obstante provision kicks-in only on the AO assuming the jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act, that is, if the AD exercises its jurisdiction to initiate the machinery provisions of Section 153C of the Act to make an assessment/reassessment of the assessee's income for the stipulated period. The non obstante provisions do no come into play, if the AO does not take recourse to provision of Section 153C of the Act.
The non obstante clause as used in Section 153C of the Act cannot be read to completely exclude the provisions of Sections 143 or 147 of the Act in cases where the assessee's income is sought to be assessed inter alia on the basis of the information found during search proceedings. However, it will not be open for the AO to take recourse to Section 147 of the Act, where the AO has taken steps under Section 153C of the Act. Thus, if the conditions for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act are satisfied and the AO issues a notice as required under Section 153C of the Act, any reassessment under Section 147 of the Act would obviously, be impermissible. This is because the Act does not contemplate parallel assessment proceedings. Where the AO is satisfied that the assets, material and documents forwarded by the AO of the searched person under Section 153C of the Act has a bearing on determination of the income of the assessee for any of the years, the AO shall proceed to issue a notice under Section 153C of the Act. By virtue of non obstante clause, the AO is not required to follow the procedural rigours of Section 148 of the Act. Subject to obtaining the approval under Section 153D of the Act, if necessary, the AO is not required to seek any approval from the specified authority, as required under Section
However, if the AO does not take recourse to Section 153C of the Act but proceeds under Section 147 of the Act he would necessarily have to follow the due procedure as specified for initiating such proceedings.
The assumption that provisions of Section 153C of the Act precludes any proceeding under Section 147 of the Act by virtue of the non obstante clause, is unpersuasive. The scheme of Sections 153C of the Act indicates that the said provision was enacted to simplify the procedure, while maintaining the necessary safeguards, for assessment/reassessment in cases where assets belonging to the assessee or books of account or documents, which contain information pertaining to the assessee are found pursuant to a search conducted under Section 132 of the Act or requisition made under Section 132A of the Act, in respect of a person other than the assessee. This is subject to the same having a bearing on the determination of income of the assessee. The AO is neither require to record reasons for his belief that the income of the assessee for the concerned assessment year has escaped assessment nor does he require to seek further approvals as required under Section 148 of the Act. However, he must be satisfied that the assets seized or requisitioned or the documents, books of account or other material transmitted by the AO of the searched person belongs to or contains information, which has a bearing on the determination of the income of the assessee. The reassessment must be predicated on material held to be incriminating and the income assessed / reassessed must be relatable to the material found as held by this Court in Kabul Chawla and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra).
In Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra) (and connected petitions), the Rajasthan High Court had interpreted the non obstante clause of Sections 153A and 153C to have an overriding effect on the legal provisions for assessment/ reassessment including under Sections 139,147,148, 149 and 153 of the Act. We are unable to concur that the said provisions are overridden merely on account of assets, books of account, documents and material being seized or requisitioned which either belong to or contain information regarding a person other than the one searched. If the AO does not exercise the jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act, recourse to the normal provisions of assessment or reassessment are not foreclosed. The provisions of Section 153C of the Act are enacted for the purpose of simplifying the procedure in search cases. The import of such provisions
On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional High Court and ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the revenue has issued notice u/s 153C of the Act for the same assessment year and the assessee is participating in that proceeding.
Therefore, the revenue cannot be preferred the present appeal before this bench and the same is required to be dismissed.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that the revenue has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) mainly on three grounds a. ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition without considering the facts of the case. b. ld. CIT(A) should not have held the proceeding u/s. 148 as bad c. ld. CIT(A) should uphold the decision of the revenue to the proceeding-initiated u/s. 148 of the Act.
As argued before us by the ld. AR of the assessee that pursuance to the order of the ld. CIT(A) the revenue has already issued the notice u/s. 153C of the Act for the year under consideration based on the finding of the ld. CIT(A) which was following the decision of our own Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in a common order dated 19.03.2024 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition filed by the petitioners, whose cases were re-opened u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 on the basis of incriminating documents seized during the course of search proceedings in the case of Ramesh Manihar Group, Jaipur. In the above order Hon'ble High Court, Rajasthan has quashed the notices issued under Section 148 and the resultant assessment orders. Even based on that finding fresh notice u/s. 153C of the dated 06.02.2025 was issued in the case of the assessee and therefore, there is not merit in the present appeal filed by the revenue and thereby the same is dismissed based on the fact that since ld. AO considering the decision of the ld. CIT(A) which was based on the High Court direction the ld. AO has already initiated the alternative remedy the present appeal devoid of merit and thereby the same is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07/07/2025.
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:- 07/07/2025 JCIT vs. Ashok Parwal *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-04, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Ashok Parwal, 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. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 53/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत