vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM + dey's k t;UrHkkbZ] y[s kk lnL; ,o Jh ujUs nz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; d s le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy l-a@ITA No. 1121/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ranjit Thakur cuke Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 182 Achrol Vaya Achrol, Vs. Jaipur Ishar Marg, 1^st Street P O Achrol Amer, Jaipur LFkk;hy[s kk l-a@thvkbvZ kj l-a@PAN/GIR No.: AFYPT 6322 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@s Assessee by : Sh. S. L Poddar, Adv.

jktLo dh vksj l@s Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 07/01/2025 mn?kk"s k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 21/01/2025 vkn's k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The present appeal has been because the assessee is dissatisfied with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurugram dated 12/08/2024 [ for short ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2011-12. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arose, as assessee had challenged the order dated 16.11.2018 passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act [ for short Act ], by ITO, Ward 5(1), Jaipur [ for short AO].

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -

1 Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Learned AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is void ab- initio as the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has not been served to the assessee.

2 Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order without giving the adequate opportunity of hearing and without serving any notice for hearing to the assessee as appeal was filed manually and PAN of the assessee was not registered on ITBA portal.

3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,87,200/- on account of alleged unexplained investment for purchase of shares.

4 Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment for purchase of bonds.

5 The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

3. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the record are that in this case, the assessee made a transaction for shares / commodities for an amount of Rs. 3,79,859/- and investment in purchase of bond / debenture of Rs. 9,92,400/-. The assessee also received contract receipts of Rs. 21,625/-. Since the assessee had not filed a return of income, notice as per provision of section 148 was issued on 28.03.2018 after recording reasons and taking approval from the Pr. CIT-II, Jaipur.

As is evident from the record notice u/s 148 was duly served upon the assessee through speed post. Even in response to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed no return of income. On change of incumbent, Notice u/s 142(1) questionnaire and its enclosure issued on 26.07.2018 and duly served upon the assessee through speed post. Accordingly, ld. AO proceeded to assess income as per provisions of section 144 of the Act. While doing so, based on the information, ld. AO made additions for Investment for purchase of shares of Rs. 5,87,200/- and for Investment on purchase of bonds at Rs. 5,00,000/-, and thereby income was determined at Rs. 10,87,000/-.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised, the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:

“5.0 Decision: - Keeping in view the aforesaid factual and legal position, the appeal filed by the appellant is therefore decided on merits on the basis of documents available on record.

5.1 Ground of Appeal No. 1:-This ground of appeal is general