vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘B’, JAIPUR Mk

0 ,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, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 654/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12.

Mahendra Sharma, cuke Income Tax Officer, Opp,. Road No. 8 Flat No. 2, Vs. Ward 3(1), RIICO Complex, Sikar Road, Jaipur.

VKIA Road, Jaipur.

LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@

PAN/GIR No. CIJPS 0428 K vihykFkhZ@ Appellant izR;FkhZ@

Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@ Assessee by : Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Adv.

Shri S.L. Jain, Sr. Adv. &

Shri Ashok Ku. Gupta,Adv.

jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing: 28/01/2025 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 25/03/2025 vkns'k@

ORDER PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.09.2023 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2011-12.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1. The Reasons for Reopening of the assessment not valid:

That the learned Authorities below have grossly erred in law and facts in where the assessee has already made a full and true disclosure of all the relevant materials in the first instance when the original assessment was framed – reasons for reopening fail to mention which material was failed to be disclosed by the assessee. It cannot be said that there was any failure on the party of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the material facts necessary for assessment. There is no finding of concealed income. The reopening is based on third party statement (No evidentiary value).

2. Assumption of Jurisdiction on Presumption :

That the learned Authorities below have grossly erred in law and facts in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction for re-assessment. The re-assessment proceedings in this case were only based on presumption/suspicion and were thus not validly initiated.

3. Re-assessment is based on borrowed satisfaction :

That the learned Authorities below have grossly erred in law and facts in issuing notice u/s 148 on the basis of AIR information in respect of cash deposit in bank accounts and without verifying the correctness of the information and therefore re- assessment proceeding is absolutely bad in law and without jurisdiction and further AO not recorded his satisfaction and re-assessment is based on borrowed satisfaction which was not sufficient to confer power on the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings against the assessee. CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 231 (Raj.). SLP dismissed (20090 313 ITR (St.)27 (SC) – Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2016) 287 CTR (Del.) 621.

4. Sanction u/s 151 Not Obtained :

That the learned Authorities below have grossly erred in law and facts in not taking the sanction u/s 151 of the IT Act before issue of notice u/s 148 from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and sanction ought not to be mechanical and sanctioning authority did apply his mind. Even the ld.AO has not provided sanction order in spite of many request.

5. Objection Not Disposed by Order :

(a) That the learned Authorities below have grossly erred in law and facts in whether the AO was required to dispose off the objections filed by the assessee against the reasons recorded by him before he start the assessment proceedings as per law separately by an speaking order.

(b) That the learned Authorities below have grossly erred in law and facts in whether having acquiesced and participating in the assessment proceedings by the assessee, is too late for the appellant to argue that non disposal of the objections was a fatal flaw vitiating the order passed by AO. M/s. K.C. Mercantile vs. CIT Circle-2, Jaipur (DB Appeal No. 292/2016).

6. Re-assessment can be by the Original AO : That