ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR V. TARA CHAND GOEL, JAIPUR

ITA 1353/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur against Tara Chand Goel, concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The department was dissatisfied with the order of the Learned CIT(A), which had set aside the assessment order that included substantial additions to the assessee's income due to unaccounted cash loans and capital gains from property sales. The department's appeal was primarily based on the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, alleging that income had escaped assessment. However, the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment was influenced by a precedent set by the Rajasthan High Court, which quashed similar notices under section 148 in a related case. The tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, noting that it was not maintainable following the issuance of notices under section 153C, indicating a shift in the department's approach to the case based on the seized material and subsequent legal interpretations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787698 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHAN SOGANI; THROUGH V.C
• Keywords: Set aside; Documents seized
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No. 1353/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Tara Chand Goel G-2, Vinoba Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No. ABGPG7648M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani, C.A. (through V.c.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 20/11/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 20/11/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Present appeal has been filed by the department, feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 21.07.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), as thereby the appeal filed by the assessee challenging assessment order dated 10.12.2019, relating to the assessment year 2012-13, and computing total income of the assessee at Rs. 8,73,95,910/- with an addition of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1353/JPR/2025 Tara Chand Goel, Jaipur. 8,25,00,000/- due to unaccounted cash loan and another addition of Rs. 37,52,500/- was allowed and the assessment order were set aside. 2. Arguments heard. File perused. Initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act 3. As per case of the department, proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act (in short “the Act”) were initiated on the basis of information available with the department and the Assessing Officer having reasons to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 11,46,81,600/- had escaped, as regards the assessment year 2012-13. 4. The reason for reopening was that the assessee had given unaccounted loan to the tune of Rs. 8,25,00,000/-, through Ramesh Manihar Group and Shri Manmohan Krishna Bagla and earned interest income thereon, and also that the assessee had sold immovable property worth Rs. 3,21,81,600/-. Further, it is case of the department that the assessee had not shown the above said cash loan and interest income on the cash loan and the capital gain respectively. That is how, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed return of income, in response thereto. Then, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1353/JPR/2025 Tara Chand Goel, Jaipur. 5. The assessee filed objections against the reasons for reopening of the case. Ultimately, the above said additions were made. The assessee filed an appeal before Learned CIT(A), and said appeal was allowed. That is how, the department is in appeal. 6. Findings of Learned CIT(A) in the appeal are based on decision by our own Hon’ble High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2024) 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019, wherein notices u/s 148 of the Act and the impugned orders under challenge , were quashed. 7. The impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) is based on following reasons and findings :- “5.2.7 In the above order Hon'ble High Court, Rajasthan has quashed the notices issued under Section 148 and the resultant assessment orders. As per the above judgement, 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 of the Act instead of section 147/148 of the Act., as the proceedings in the relevant cases were initiated based on the incriminating material and documents including Pen Drives seized during the search carried out of in the case of Ramesh Manihar Group and the statements recorded during proceedings. Further, as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Rajasthan, applicability of Section 153C in cases where the seized material related to or belonged to person other than on whom search is conducted or requisition made does not render Section 148 otiose. Section 148 shall continue Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1353/JPR/2025 Tara Chand Goel, Jaipur. to apply to the regular proceedings and also in cases where no incriminating material is seized during the search or requisition. 5.2.8 As per decision of Hon'ble High Court, Rajasthan in the above writ petition, it is clear that the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and the assessment order in the cases which were reopened on the basis of incriminating documents seized during the course of search in the case of Ramesh Manihar Group are quashed. 5.2.9 Considering the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the case of the appellant was also reopened u/s 148 of the 1.T.Act, 1961 by the Id. AO on the basis of information of advancing of unaccounted cash loans by the appellant through the broker Sh. Ramesh Chand Maheshwari and on the basis of seized material during the course of search proceedings in the Ramesh Manihar Group. 5.2.10 In the light of the above decision, as the facts of the present case are similar, hence the above judgement of Hon'ble High Court is squarely applicable in the present case of the appellant. 5.2.11 Accordingly, the order passed by the AO u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 has become ineffective as on date as the Hon'ble High Court Rajasthan has quashed the notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and impugned orders in the cases which were re-opened on the basis of seized material during the course of search proceedings in the Ramesh Manihar Group. 5.2.12 In these circumstances, the assessment order u/s 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 under challenge in present appeal does not survive, the assessment order passed by the AO has become infructuous. Hence the ground of appeal challenging the legality of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is hereby allowed.” 8. It may be mentioned here that in para 40 of the decision in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal case (supra), Hon’ble High Court observed that the Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 1353/JPR/2025 Tara Chand Goel, Jaipur. Revenue shall be at liberty to proceed against the assessee in accordance with law. 9. Today, Ld. AR for the assessee has brought to our notice that after the passing of the orders by Hon’ble High Court and before allowing of appeal by Learned CIT(A), the department issued notice dated 28.01.2025 u/s 153C of the Act, in respect of the assessment year under consideration, and further that the assessee has been participating in said proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. Ld. AR has placed on record copies of the notice u/s 153C of the Act. 10 Present appeal came to be presented by the department on 29.09.2025 i.e. after issuance of the above said notices u/s 153C of the Act. In this situation, department can safely be said to have accepted the impugned order decision of Hon’ble High Court, even before the passed by Learned CIT(A) in the appeal of the assessee. Conclusion 11 As a result, we are of the considered opinion that having issued notice(s) u/s 153C of the Act, on the facts and material already within the know of the department, in terms of the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A), which are based on decision by our own Hon’ble High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal’s case, present appeal, which came to be Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 1353/JPR/2025 Tara Chand Goel, Jaipur. presented subsequently i.e. after the issuance of the notice(s) under section 153 C, is “not maintainable”. Result 12 In view of the above findings, the appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed, being not maintainable. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 20/11/2025. 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:- 20/11/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Tara Chand Goel, Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. vk;djvk;qDr@CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1353/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "