vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ dey's k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-

fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@ Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Cuke Assistant Commissioner of Ashok Kumar Singhi Income Tax, Vs. 4634, Johari Bazar, Central Circle-4, Jaipur.

Jaipur.

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

PAN/GIR No.: ADGPS6552E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Assessee by : Sh. R.K. Bhatra, C.A.

jktLo dh vksj ls Revenue by:Mrs. Alka Gautam CIT-DR (through V.C.)

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@

Date of Hearing : 21/08/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@

Date of Pronouncement: 22/08/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member Both the above captioned appeals are being disposed of vide this common order, as same issue is involved and arguments have been advanced in the appeals simultaneously.

2. Vide impugned orders dated 05.04.2025, Learned CIT(A) allowed two separate appeals filed by the assessee- respondent herein, relating to the assessment years 2015-16 & 2016-17, thereby setting aside the two separate assessment orders dated 21.03.2022.

3. Arguments heard. File perused.

4. At the outset, Ld. AR for the assessee has brought to our notice that separate notices dated 06.02.2025, u/s 153C of the Act, were issued by the department in respect of each assessment year.

Learned DR admits about issuance of notices under section 153C to the assessee, even before institution of these two appeals.

5. Vide impugned order Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the assessment orders on the ground that the assessment order u/s 147 of the Act did not survive in view of decision by our own Hon’ble High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2024) 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019.

In nut-shell Learned CIT(A) was of the view that since Hon’ble High Court quashed the notice u/s 148 of the Act, for the reasons recorded therein, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer had become ineffective.

6. At this stage, relevant observations and findings recorded by our own Hon’ble High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal case (supra), need to be reproduced. Relevant portion reads as under:-

"23. The reasons supplied in case in hand for initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 are based on the incriminating material and documents including Pen Drives seized during the search carried out of the Manihar Group and the statements recorded during proceedings. From the information received the AO noticed that the loan advanced and interest earned thereon were unaccounted. In other words the basis for initiation of Section 148 proceedings is the material seized relating to or belonging to the petitioner, during the search conducted of Manihar Group.

24. In the case where search or requisition is made, the AO under Section 153A mandatorily is required to issue notices to the assessee for filing of income tax return for the relevant preceding years. The AO assumes jurisdiction to assess/reassess 'total income' by passing separate order for each assessment.

25. In cases of the person other than on whom search was conducted but material belonging or relating such person was seized or requisition, the AO has to proceed under Section 153C. The two pre-requisites are that the AO dealing with the assessee on whom search was conducted or requisition made, being satisfied that seized material belongs or relates to other assessee shall hand over it to AO having jurisdiction of such assessee. Thereafter, the satisfaction of AO receiving the seized material that the material handed over has a bearing for determination of total income of such other person for the relevant preceding years. On fulfillment of twin conditions the AO shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section