vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk

0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ dey's 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.1171/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@

Assessment Years : 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner of Income cuke Jitendra Kumar Daga Tax, Vs. 1370, Tara Chand Naib Ka rasta Central Circle-4, Johri Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur.

LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABXPD6015E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv.

jktLo dh vksj ls Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@

Date of Hearing : 19/02/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 05/05/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur-5 dated 18.07.2024 [hereinafter referred as “CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2012-13, which in turn arise from the order dated 13.12.2019 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, [In short “Act” ]

by the AO.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds:-

“i) Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment proceedings based solely on the High Court judgment in DBCWP 18363/2019, without considering the unique facts and circumstances of the present case.

(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) is justified in holding that notice u/s 148 is not sustainable legally relying upon the order of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court's order dated 19.03.2024 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019 and several other linked petitions wherein wrongly held that once there is incriminating material seized or requisitioned belonging or relatable to the person other than on whom search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to without giving any finding that issuance of notice under section 148 was incorrect. Thus, the CIT (A) is not justified in quashing notice issued u/s 148 of the Act.

(iii) Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in overturning the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the precedent set by the Hon. Supreme Court of India in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Circle 1(2) V/s. M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Private Limited (2022) 14 SCC 101. In light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the aforementioned case, the Learned CIT (A) should have upheld the issuance of the notice under Section 148, unless there were compelling reasons to deviate from the established legal precedent.

(iv) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceeding.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that a search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out in the case of Ramesh Manihar Group on 07.01.2016. The information revealed that the group was indulged in cash loan finance on large scale. During the course of search, voluminous data comprising of excel sheets in 18 pen-drives seized from the main office of the Ramesh Manihar Group at 303, Ratna Sagar, MSB Kaa Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur, which consisted details of cash loans financed by the Ramesh Manihar Group. The information further revealed that the persons of the Ramesh Manihar Group, being Shri Ramesh Chand Maheshwari and Shri Manmohan Krishan Bagla were engaged as finance brokers for arranging cash loans between various borrowers and lenders which were not reflected in the books of accounts and that the brokerage received for such unrecorded cash transactions was also not offered for taxation by the group. As per the information, investigation wing carried out an investigation and names of lender were identified out of the names which were recorded in the said data and it was established that the appellant was associated with the above group and had paid cash lo