DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. K P EXPORTS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1157/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. It relied on a High Court precedent and noted that the Department itself had subsequently issued fresh notices, implying acceptance of the legal infirmity of the earlier notices.

What were the facts?

The Department of Income Tax filed two appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders for AYs 2013-14 and 2015-16. The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeals, setting aside assessment orders, on the technical ground that the Assessing Officer incorrectly issued notices under Section 148 instead of Sections 153C/153D for search and seizure cases.

What were the issues?

Whether assessment notices issued under Section 148 are valid for search and seizure cases where Sections 153C and 153D procedures should have been followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 153C,Section 153D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1157/JPR/2024

Hearing: 15/05/2025Pronounced: 15/05/2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 1157/JPR/2024
ITA No. 1158/JPR/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/05/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 15/05/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . This common order is to dispose of the above captioned two appeals filed by the department, as common issues are involved, and as such & 1158/JPR/2024 K.P. Exports Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur. Learned DR for the department-appellant and Ld. AR for the respondent have put forth common submissions in respect of both the appeals together.

2.

First mentioned appeal relates to the assessment year 2013-14, whereas the second mentioned appeal relates to the assessment year 2015-16.

3.

Each appeal arises out of order dated 12.07.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A).

4.

Today, when these appeals have been taken up for hearing, Ld. AR for the appellant has presented copy of notice dated 30.01.2025 of the Act, recently issued by the department to the assessee in respect of the two assessment years under consideration i.e. 2013-14 and 2015-16.

5.

Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) allowed two separate appeals filed by the assessee, while placing reliance on the decision of our own Hon’ble High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal v. ACIT, (2024) 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan), DB Civil Writ Petition No. 18363 of 2019 and others, holding that the additions made by the Assessing Officer, in respect of each assessment year i.e. 2013-14 and 2015-16 were legally not & 1158/JPR/2024 K.P. Exports Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur. sustainable on the technical ground that notices issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee were issued u/s 148 of the Act, whereas in the given facts and circumstance, notices u/s 153C of the Act were required to be issued, in view of procedure prescribed u/s 153C and 153D for assessment in cases of search and seizure.

6.

In view of the above decision by our own Hon’ble High Court, which squarely applies to the facts of the present two appeals, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by Learned CIT(A) whereby two appeals filed by the same assessees have been allowed, while setting aside the two assessment orders.

7.

Even otherwise, as noticed above, department has already issued notices dated 30.1.2025 to the assessee in respect of each assessment year under consideration. This goes to suggest that the department has accepted the decision by our own Hon’ble High Court on the point of illegality of notices, which were earlier issued by the department to the assessee.

Result 8. In view of the above discussion, both appeals filed by the department are hereby dismissed.

& 1158/JPR/2024 K.P. Exports Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur. Copy of the common order be placed in the connected appeal file. Files be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/05/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 15/05/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- DCIT, Central Circle-4, jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- K.P. Exports Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 2. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File & 1158/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →