DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR V. ANIL BINDRANI, JAIPUR

ITA 1273/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-04, Jaipur against Anil Bindrani, concerning an assessment order for the year 2013-14. The primary contention arose from the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the original assessment order, which was influenced by a precedent set by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal v. ACIT. The High Court had quashed similar notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, providing the department the liberty to proceed according to law. In this context, the CIT(A) allowed Bindrani's appeal, leading to the department's challenge in the tribunal. However, upon presenting a notice under section 153C issued to Bindrani, the tribunal concluded that the department had acted on the High Court's decision, rendering their appeal infructuous.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35316 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Shyam Sunder Khandelwal v. ACIT, (2024) 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHAN SOGANI
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 148; 250; 153C

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1273/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-04, Jaipur cuke Vs. Anil Bindrani, J-75, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEQPB5718J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 18/02/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 18/02/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER By way of present appeal, department has challenged order dated 16.08.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A), u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Vide impugned order, Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the assessee’s appeal and set aside the assessment order dated 26.09.2021. 2 ITA No. 1273/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Anil Bindrani 3. While allowing the appeal, Ld. CIT(A) followed the decision by our own Hon’ble High Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal v. ACIT, (2024) 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019. 4. In the above said case, Hon’ble High Court quashed notices u/s 148 of the Act, for the reasons recorded therein. At the same time, the department was given liberty to proceed against the petitioners therein, in accordance with law. Consequently, ld. CIT(A) followed suit and having regard to the provisions of section 148 and 153C of the Act, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. But, the department came up in appeal. 5. Today, when the appeal has been taken up for hearing, copy of notice u/s 153C of the Act issued by ACIT, Central Circle-04, Jaipur, relating to the same assessment year 2013-14, has been presented. Vide this notice, the department has required the assessee to prepare true and and correct return of his total income for the said assessment year. 3 ITA No. 1273/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Anil Bindrani 6. Admittedly, the department has issued notice u/s 153C of the Act. In this situation, it can safely be said that the department has given effect to the decision by our own Hon’ble High Court. 7. The department having complied with and acted upon the above said decision by our Hon’ble High Court, as rightly submitted by both the sides, present appeal by the department can safely be said to have become infructuous. Result 8. As a consequence, this appeal is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 18 /02/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- DCIT, Central Circle-04, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Anil Bindrani, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 4 ITA No. 1273/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Anil Bindrani 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1273/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "