PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 999/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 April 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the appeal filed by the assessee was not pressed. For the appeal filed by the Department, the Ld. DR relied on the assessment order. However, the Ld. AR for the assessee relied on a High Court judgment which quashed notices under Section 148 and consequential orders when incriminating material related to another person was seized, suggesting Section 153C should have been invoked. The CIT(A) had found the additions unsustainable on technical grounds.

What were the facts?

Two appeals were filed by the Department (ITA No. 996/JPR/2024) and the assessee (ITA No. 999/JPR/2024) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeals challenged an order by the Learned CIT(A) dated 30.05.2024, which allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were valid when the Assessing Officer should have proceeded under Section 153C based on seized material belonging to another person.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 153C,Section 132,Section 147

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,”B-Bench” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 996/JPR/2024

Hearing: 29/04/2025Pronounced: 30/04/2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 996/JPR/2024
ITA No. 999/JPR/2024

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

fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prakash Chand Kothari cuke The DCIT, B-4A, Kothari House, Prithviraj Road, Vs. Circle-6, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABPK2884R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (through V.C.) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :29/04/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . This common order is to dispose of the above captioned two appeals. has been filed by the assessee.

In both appeals, challenge is to order dated 30.05.2024, passed by Learned CIT, relating to the assessment year 2012-13. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and thereby set aside the assessment order.

We order accordingly. filed by the department, Ld. DR for the appellant has only submitted that she stands by the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, for the reasons recorded therein.

& 999/JPR/2024 Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that he stands by the impugned order passed by learned CIT(A) as regards the findings recorded therein, on the basis of judgment dated 19.03.2024 passed by 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.

5.

In the abovesaid decision, our own Hon’ble High Court quashed the notices issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) as well as consequential assessment orders, due to the reason that where in case of search conducted on a person incriminating material belonging or relating to other person was seized and requisitioned, the Assessing Officer was required to proceed u/s 153C of the Act instead of proceeding under section 147/148 of the Act.

6.

Learned CIT(A) went on to observe that as per information received from the office of DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur, search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Ramesh Manihar Group on 7.1.2016; that the group was found indulging in cash loan financing on a large scale; that information was regarding Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, who paid cash loan to various persons during the year under consideration; that the assessee had indulged in lending and Learned CIT(A) observed that since the additions did not survive on technical ground, notice under section 148 of the Act was not sustainable legally.

7.

In view of the decision by our own Hon’ble High Court, which squarely applies to the facts of the appeal, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A)

Result 8. In view of the above discussion, this appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed. 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 30/04/2025.

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:- 30/04/2025 & 999/JPR/2024 Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- DCIT, Circle-6, jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Prakash chand Kothari, Jaipur. 2. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File & 999/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 →