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; ,o a Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyl-a@ITA No.414/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2015-16 Sylvan Greens Private Ltd. cuke The DCIT

4-A, Kamla Nehru Market Vs. Circle-6 East Ajmeri Gate, Jaipur – 302 004 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjl-a@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCS5914 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Smt. Neelam Bhala, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 03/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 25 /07 /2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 21-01-2025, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2015-16 raising therein following grounds of appeal.

‘’1. That in absence of signature of the person who has recorded the reason on the annexure appended along with approval where reason for reopening the assessment mentioned the reopening of assessment by the Ld. AO is void ab-

initio and is unsustainable in law and on facts and liable to be quashed.

2. That the Ld. AO seriously erred in reopening the assessment only on the basis of change of opinion while all the material on the basis of the Ld AO reopen the assessment had already been provided during the course of scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and the order passed by the Ld AO deserves to be quashed.

3. That the Ld. AO has not find any additional / tangible material which were not provided by the assessee neither during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act, nor during any enquiry by the assessee. Hence the assessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Act are not according to the law and facts of the case.

4. That The Ld AO has reason to believe recorded only on surmises is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case and the same kindly be quashed.

5. That the Notice issued under section 148 beyond time limit are not according to the law and facts of the case and the same kindly be quashed.

6. That the Ld AO has seriously erred in law and facts of the case, being proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 not complied the provisions of the Act amended by the Finance Act 2021, though the notice is served on or after 01 April 2021

7. The Ld AO had seriously erred in adding Subsidy received Rs. 7186388 as business income only on the basis of surmises, without passing the speaking order regarding to all objections raised by the assessee, without considering the object for which subsidy was given, without following the proper procedure with respect with respect to reassessment and without giving the deduction under section

801C, are not according to the law and facts of the case.

8. That the order passed under section 250 of Income Tax Act by the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without providing the proper opportunity of being heard, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and equity and liable to be quashed.

2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing Kraft Paper in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The assessee had filed its original Income Tax Return on 28-09- 2015 for the assessment year 2015-16 thereby declaring total income at Rs.64,21,420/- under the head of Income from Business and Interest Income. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act were completed on 21-11-2017 accepting returned income/loss. The AO, thereafter on perusal of the records available with him, noted that during assessment the assessee had received a subsidy of capital nature of Rs.71,86,3