(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:9)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC-Bench” JAIPUR (cid:1)

(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:5) (cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:20)(cid:19) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:24)ti(cid:8)(cid:26) (cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5) (cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:19) (cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:2)(cid:1)

BEFORE: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM (cid:9)

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:30)ITA No.716/JPR/2025 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:31)(cid:11)(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:2)ti!(cid:2) (cid:30)AssessmentYear : 2016-17(cid:9)

Sh. Nasruddin "(cid:31)(cid:2)(cid:27)(cid:9) The ITO, 123, Opposite Bhartendu Samiti, (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) Ward-2(1), Ladpura, Kota. Kota.

(cid:23)#(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:20)(cid:19) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:2)$(cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:30)PAN/GIR No.: ADDPK1571E (cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:2)#(cid:2)(cid:7) (cid:30)Appellant (cid:6)%&(cid:3)#(cid:2)(cid:7) (cid:30)Respondent (cid:9)

(cid:10)(cid:31)(cid:11)(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:5)’(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:30)Assesseeby :Shri P.C.Parwal, C.A.

(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:23)ti(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:21)(cid:30)(cid:19) Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:31)ti(cid:2)$ (cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:9)’(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:20)(cid:2)(cid:30)Date of Hearing :25/09/2025 (cid:9) (cid:9) ((cid:22))(cid:2)(cid:2)!(cid:19) (cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:9)’(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:20)(cid:2)(cid:30)Date of Pronouncement: 29 /09/2025 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:22)*(cid:19) (cid:2)(cid:30)ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .

Assessee-appellant has challenged order dated 25.02.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, relating to the assessment year 2016-17, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee, challenging assessment order dated 19.04.2023, has been dismissed, thereby upholding the only addition of Rs. 6,81,750/-, made due to unexplained investment made by the assessee.

2. Arguments heard. File perused.

Contentions

3. The only contention raised by the Ld. AR for the appellant before us is that in the appellate proceedings, the assessee-appellant had raised an additional ground challenging re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act instead of proceeding u/s 153C of the Act, but, Learned CIT(A) did not record any specific findings, as regards the said contention and rather dismissed the appeal, while sustaining the addition.

Further, it has been contended that this is a case, where some incriminating material is stated to have been seized from the other, but neither copies of the incriminating material were supplied to the assessee, nor assessment proceedings were conducted under section 153 C of the Act, and rather, same have been conducted under section 148 of the Act, and as such, the assessment order deserved to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Learned DR for the department has submitted that this is a case where the Assessing Officer received only information and on its basis initiated proceedings against the assessee rightly under section 148 of the Act. Further, Learned DR has submitted that Learned CIT(A) specifically dealt with the abovesaid legal ground raised on behalf of the appellant,