Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 4792
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (JAIPUR BENCH)
DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM, SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
Revenue – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kamalaprabha – Respondent
IT Appeal No. 94/JPR/2025 | CO No. 22/JPR/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-Sr.DR
For the Respondents: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.
The court highlighted that for notice under section 153C to be valid, there must be independent satisfaction about the incriminating material, which must pertain to the total income of the assessee, failing which, the proceedings are void.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 144 and 153C - Validity of notice for reopening assessment - Appeal by revenue against CIT(A) finding invalidating notice issued on grounds of lack of independent satisfaction and no incriminating material deemed found - Notice held barred by limitation for AY 2014-15 and others invalidated due to absence of new evidence - The appellant’s prior income filings showing capital gains were already established and disclosed, thus barring any reassessment of undisclosed income. (Paras 12, 5.9, 5.3)
(B) Jurisdictional issues - The notice under section 153C must satisfy conditions of incriminating material and validity of prior assessments must be met. Assessing officer failed to show any new or pertinent incriminating evidence, thus the appeal for reopening the assessments was unjustified. (Paras 5.8, 5.3)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of income tax assessment case. (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. dispute over technical grounds and limitations. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. analysis of revenue's claims regarding validity of proceedings. (Para 6 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. jurisdictional requirements under sections 153a and 153c. (Para 11 , 13) |
ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
The present appeal filed by the revenue which is which is arising out of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-4, Jaipur [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 30.11.2024 for the assessment year 2014-15. That order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) because the assessee challenged the order of assessment passed on 30.03.2023 as per provision of section 144 r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act” ] by the ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur [ for short AO ]. Against that appeal of the revenue the assessee also preferred to file the cross objection.
-
2. Since the issue is involved in the Revenue’s appeal and cross objection of the assessee relates to the same assessment year we considered to dispose together.
3. Before moving towards the facts of the case, we would like to reiterate the grounds upon which revenue has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 94/JPR/2025:-
“i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Id.CIT(A) has erred in deleting all the additions made by A.O on technical ground only without giving any finding on the merits of additions?
ii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding notice u/s 153C invalid without appreciating that there is specific reference to incriminating seized material in the satisfaction note recorded by A.O for issue of notice u/s 153C ?
-
iii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting all the additions made by A.O without appreciating that the additions made by A.O are based on findings of search/post search proceedings ?
iv) The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before on during the hearing of this appeal.”
4. On the other hand, the assessee has filed cross objection in CO No. 22/JPR/2025 against the revenue’s appeal, on the following grounds:-
“1. The Id. CITA erred in not deciding that the impugned notice issued us 153C of the Act for A.Y. 2014 15 is also barred by limitation. Since the time limit to complete the assessment us 153B of the Act itself expired on 31.03.2020, any notice issued under section 153C thereafter is also barred by limitation and thus, being a nullity, deserves to be quashed.
2. The Id. CITA erred in not deciding that the impugned assessment order passed us 144 r.w.s. 153C of the Act dated 30.03.2023 for A.Y. 2014 15 is barred by limitation us 153B r.w.s 153C of the Act. Considering that the date of receipt of the seized record and information was 02.12.2019, the impugned assessment should have been passed on or before 31.03.2020. As against this, the same was passed on 30.03.2023 and thus, being a nullity, deserves to be quashed.
3. The Id. CITA erred in not deciding that the impugned assessment order for the subject A.Y. 2014 15 has been passed completely without jurisdiction. This is because the same falls completely outside the block of 6 years prior to the date of search i.e., the date of receipt of the seized record being 03.03.2022 as admitted by the learned Assessing Officer himself. The period of 6 assessment years is for and from Assessment Year 2016 17 to 2021 22. Thus, the impugned assessment order is a complete nullity being without jurisdiction and hence deserves to be quashed.
-
4. Addition of Rs.4,44,60,476 The Id. CIT-A erred in not deciding the ground that the learned Assessing Officer also seriously erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in making an addition of Long Term Capital Gains i.e. LTCG of Rs.4,44,60,476 LTCG declared by the assessee was Rs.0 as against that assessed by the Assessing 4 Officer at Rs.4,44,6
