AMIT ROHADA AND SONS,KOTA V. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

ITA 1260/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Amit Rohada and Sons, who appealed against the order of the Learned CIT(A) dismissing their challenge to the assessment order for the year 2013-14. The primary issue was the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs. 7,85,920, which was considered as unexplained credit. The assessee raised additional grounds concerning the legal validity of the approval for reassessment and the timing of the notice under section 148. The Tribunal examined these grounds in light of the provisions of the Income Tax Act and relevant judicial precedents, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793576 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, Rajeev Bansal's case
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDRA SISODIA
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained cash credit; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 68

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUn zdqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No.1260/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 Amit Rohada and Sons 709A, Pratap Nagar, Kota. cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-2(2), Kota. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AACHA9125L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Rajendra Sisodia, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :25/09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIALMEMBER . Assessee-appellant has challenged order dated 28.08.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2013-14, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee, challenging assessment order dated 23.03.2022, has been dismissed. As a result, the only addition made u/s 68 of the Act, to the tune of Rs. 7,85,920/-, on the basis of unexplained credit, has been upheld. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2024 Amit Rohada and Sons, Kota. 2. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted an application to raise two additional grounds. Ld. AR for the appellant has pressed the second mentioned additional ground first i.e. approval granted u/s 151 of the Act was required to be granted by Principal Chief Commissioner , but, herein approval u/s 151 of the Act, was granted by Learned PCIT, not a specified authority to grant such approval, in the present matter, where the period for assessment exceeded 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 3. Attention of Ld. AR for the appellant has been drawn, and he admits, that in case appellant is to raise an additional ground application is to be filed under Rule 11 of the Act, and that Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, comes into application where the respondent arrayed in the appeal is to raise any additional ground. 4. Be that as it may, wrong mentioning of a provision is of no significance, and that what is of importance is the averment put forth therein and the prayer made therein. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2024 Amit Rohada and Sons, Kota. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the second mentioned additional ground is a legal ground, and as such, same may be taken into consideration, and the appeal may be allowed, while setting aside the impugned order and the impugned assessment order. 5. It is significant to note that ground raised by the assessee before Learned CIT(A) was not framed like the one presented before us. There, the ground of appeal was the approval was not as per law to confer valid jurisdiction on the AO to initiate re-assessment proceedings, more so when the same was mechanical, without application of mind and in stereo typed manner. We may observe here that no such contention, as was raised before Learned CIT(A), has been raised by Learned AR for the appellant before us in the course of arguments. The fact remains that contention as to the competence of the authority, which granted approval, came to be raised before us and that too by way of additional ground, for the first time. As is available from the assessment order, and as not disputed by Ld. DR for the department, it was on receipt of information by the department that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries, he having made transactions in the shares scrip of Parikh Safal Herbs Limited during Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2024 Amit Rohada and Sons, Kota. financial year 2012-13, and that on the basis of said information, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, were rightly initiated after having recorded reasons. 6. As regards notice u/s 148 of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee, in para 3 of the assessment order (page 3), the Assessing Officer mentioned that the said notice was issued on 31.03.2021 and delivered to the assessee on its registered email ID, and in response thereto the assessee filed return of income on 29.04.2021. 7. Ld. AR for the appellant has challenged the above findings recorded by the Assessing Officer in para 3 regarding the date of issuance of notice, and submitted that it was actually digitally signed and issued on 01.04.2021. In this regard, ld. AR showed to us, in the course of arguments, copy of the relevant information downloaded from e Portal of the department, to point out that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was actually issued on 01.04.2021. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the department has submitted that as per contents of para 3 of the assessment order, notice u/s 148 of the Act Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2024 Amit Rohada and Sons, Kota. was issued on 31.03.2021 and delivered to the assessee on his registered email ID. 9. A perusal of approval u/s 151 of the Act would reveal that the approval was granted by Ld. PCIT on 31.03.2021, while recording satisfaction that it was a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 10. Admittedly, the approval was accorded on 31.3.2021. As per section 151 of the Act, as in force as on 31.3.2021, Learned PCIT was competent to grant approval for the purposes of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, in case of expiry of prescribed period from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the given situation, we find merit in the contention raised by Learned DR for the department that Learned PCIT was the competent authority for the purpose of issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act, as on 31.3.2021. Therefore, the contention based on second mentioned additional legal ground, as per application recently filed, is rejected. 11. The other contention raised by Learned AR for the appellant, on the basis of first mentioned additional legal ground is that assessment order Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2024 Amit Rohada and Sons, Kota. came to be passed in violation of Instruction No.01/2022, dated 11.5.2022 issued by CBDT and the directives by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, (2022) 138 taxmann.com 64(SC). 12. It is significant to note that while raising the other additional ground, Learned AR for the appellant has not elaborated or explained as to which directive of the Hon’ble Apex Court issued in Ashish Aggarwal’s case or as to which instruction issued by the CBDT in the above mentioned circular has not been complied with. Said contention has been raised while submitting that notice under section 148 of the Act ought to have been issued by 31.3.2021, but, the Assessing Officer digitally signed the notice on 31.3.2021 and issued it on 1.4.2021, the assessment order deserved to be set aside. At page 6 of the Paper Book dated 2.12.2024, appellant has submitted copy of notice under section 148 of the Act. It bears the date of the document as 31.3.2021. It also depicts DIN and number of the notice. So far as the other copy of the notice under section 148 of the Act shown to the Bench by learned AR for the appellant, in the course of Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2024 Amit Rohada and Sons, Kota. arguments, learned AR has submitted that it was digitally signed on 1.4.2021. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal’s case-reported in (SC) 2024 ITL 4249, in particular para nos. 65 to 69, which dealt with the provisions of TOLA with section 149 of the Act. Therein, Hon’ble Apex Court while taking for instance a case of the assessment year 2013-14 observed that 6 years time limit under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime expired on 31.3.2020, but TOLA extended the period for issuing notice until 30.6.2021, given the difficulties that arose because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As per notifications dated 31.3.2021 and 27.4.2021 issued by the Central Government, operation of TOLA was extended by providing an extended time limit for completing actions under the Act till 30.6.2021. Hon’ble Apex Court clearly observed in para 68 of the said decision that on 1.4.2021, TOLA was still in existence, and the Revenue could not have ignored the application of TOLA and its notifications. Applying the ratio decidendi of the celebrated judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal’s case, we do not find any merit in the Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2024 Amit Rohada and Sons, Kota. contention raised on the basis of the additional legal ground that this is a case of violation of the directives issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal’s case. 13. It may be mentioned here that no other argument was advanced by learned AR for the appellant. In other words, except the above two additional legal grounds, Learned AR for the appellant did not press any other ground of appeal. Result 14. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, the appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) is upheld, and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:-26/09/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Amit Rohada and Sons, Kota. Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2024 Amit Rohada and Sons, Kota. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-2(2), Kota. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1260/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "