VIJAY KUMAR JAIN,BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR
Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 407/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12
Shri Vijay Kumar Jain
501-503,
Central Circle-2,
Jaipur.
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADHPJ0798G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv.
jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 13/05/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 14/05/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
Assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal. He is feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 24.02.2025 whereby an appeal filed by the assessee against assessment order dated 08.12.2018, passed u/s 147 r.w.s.
143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been partly allowed.
2
Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain, Jaipur.
Vide assessment order dated 08.12.2018, the Assessing Officer- DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur computed total income of the assessee, relating to the assessment year 2011-12 as under:- Income assessee u/s 153A dated 29.02.2016 Rs. 7,10,460 Add: As per para 2.1, supra Rs. 5,62,296 Add: as per para 2.2, supra Rs. 1,33,08,800 Add: as per para 2.3, supra Rs. 22,30,536 Total Income Rs. 1,68,12,092 R/o Rs. 1,68,12,090
Vide reasons recorded in para 2.1, the Assessing Officer made first mentioned addition of Rs. 5,62,296/- keeping in view LTCG due to sale of plot No. 93 prime Estate Yojna, Sanganer; for the reasons recorded in para 2.2, the Assessing Officer made second mentioned addition of Rs. 1,33,08,800/-, on account of LTCG due to sale of Flat No. 401 & 402, S-52, Arvind Marg, C-scheme, Jaipur; and the 3rd addition of Rs. 22,30,536/-, on account of LTCG due to sale of office/Showroom at commercial complex, Chomu House, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur. 4. When the assessee filed appeal before Learned CIT(A), NFAC, he upheld the first mentioned addition of Rs. 5,62,296/-but deleted the second mentioned addition of Rs. 1,33,08,800/- and also the third mentioned addition of Rs. 22,30,536/-. 5. That is how, the assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal.
3
Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain, Jaipur.
The only contention raised by Ld. AR for the appellant before us is that this is a case where notice dated 29.03.2018 issued u/s 148 of the Act, by ITO, Ward-6(3), Jaipur can safely be said to be bad in law, being without juri iction. 7. As is available from the assessment order, the assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 07.09.2011 declaring his income of Rs. 7,10,460/-. In response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act issued on 29.02.2016, same income was declared by the assessee. 8. Case of the department is that there was information available that the assessee had sold various immovable properties for total sale consideration of Rs. 1,77,97,000/-, which were valued by the Sub-