DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR V. HEM CHAND JAIN, JAIPUR

ITA 670/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT (Appeals), which had allowed the appeal of the assessee, Hem Chand Jain, and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 69A and 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had made these additions based on the allegation that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries of short-term capital gains from the sale of shares of Gini Silk Mills Ltd., a penny stock. The CIT (Appeals) found that the additions were based on third-party information that had not been independently verified and that the assessee had not been given an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision and quashed the reassessment proceedings due to procedural lapses in issuing the notice under section 148.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785432 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal, Ramachandran Shivan vs. ITO, Mrs. Chitra Supekar vs. ITO, Fives India Engineering & Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, Ajay Duggal vs. ITO, Deepanjan Roy vs. ADIT(IT)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH OJHA; LD.; ANITA RINES H; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: P.C. PARWAL
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained cash credit; Reopening of assessment; Accommodation entries; Opportunity of cross examination; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 69C

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 Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 670/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 DY. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Hem Chand Jain 201, Jaipur Tower, M.I. Road, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAUPJ7023J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 24/JPR/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 670/JPR/2025) fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 Hem Chand Jain 201, Jaipur Tower, M.I. Road, Jaipur. cuke Vs. DY. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAUPJ7023J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri P.C. Parwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT & Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 30/09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur Delhi, dated 27.02.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. 2.1 In the appeal, the revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in allowing the relief to the assessee and ignoring the fact that the assessee had obtained accommodation entry of STCG of Rs. 3,28,75,293/- from the sale of Penny stock script M/s. Gini Silk Mills Limited? 2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in ignoring the evidences collected by Investigation Wing of the Department and penal action taken by SEBI against the assessee?] 3. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in allowing the relief to the assessee and ignoring the fact that the assessee has paid commission of Rs. 6,57,506/- for obtaining accommodation entry of STCG of Rs. 3,28,75,293/- from the sale of Penny stock script M/s. Gini Silk Mills Limited?” 2.2.1 In the Cross Objection, the assessee has taken the following grounds : “1. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the ground of the assessee challenging initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act as approval was not taken from appropriate authority u/s 151 of the Act and thus the entire proceedings is illegal and bad in law. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the ground of the assessee contending that notice issued u/s 148 dt. 23.07.2022 is barred by limitation and not considering that when order u/s 148A(d) is passed on 23.07.2022, approval obtained from PCIT-1, Jaipur on 22.07.2022 for issuance of notice u/s 148 is illegal and bad in law. 3. The assessee carves right to add, alter, amend, and modify any of the ground of appeal. 4. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual. The assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 25.07.2016 declaring total Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur income of Rs. 22,94,920/-. Thereafter, on the basis of specific information, the AO reopened the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after recording reasons for reopening the case. The reasons recorded are reproduced herein below :- “ Information regarding accommodation entry taken by the assessee is available with the department for FY 2015-16 relevant to AY 2016-17. Information has been received from Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-5(1), New Delhi. As per the information, during the investigation proceedings in the case of M/s. Ginni Silk Mills Limited it was found by the Investigation Wing that M/s. Ginni Silk Mills Limited is a listed company and the entire shareholding of which is bought by the syndicate to provide accommodation entries to the beneficiaries with the help of the brokers and entry operators. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries who has taken accommodation entry of Rs. 3,28,75,293/- in the form of STCG. During the proceeding u/s 148A(d) of the Act the JAO observed that the income of Rs. 3,28,75,293/- has escaped assessment within the provisions of Sec. 147 of the Act.” Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 30.06.2021 for the assessment year 2016-17 was issued, but in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.05.2022 in the case of UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal, such notice was considered as notice issued under section 148A(b) of the IT Act, 1961. Thereafter order under section 148A(d) was passed on 23.07.2022 on the ground that (refer para 3 of assessment order) as per information received from DDIT(Inv.), Delhi, in the case of M/s. Ginni Silk Mills Ltd., it was found that M/s. Ginni Silk Mills Ltd. is a listed company, and the entire shareholding was bought by the syndicate to provide accommodation entries to the beneficiaries with the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur help of brokers and entry operators. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries who has taken accommodation entries of Rs. 3,28,75,293/- in the form of STCG. Accordingly fresh notice under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 23.07.2022 was issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, in response to show cause notice dated 01.05.2023, the assessee filed detailed reply countering the objection raised in the show cause notice which is reproduced by the AO at para 4 pages 4 to 15 of the assessment order, and requested to provide information and documents referred in Investigation Wing report along with copy of statement recorded and opportunity to cross examine them. The AO, however, at para 4.2 pages 16 to 38 of the assessment order after reproducing part of Investigation Report, observed at para 5 pages 39 to 42 that assessee has not disclosed the purchase of shares of M/s. Ginni Silk Mills Ltd. in violation of which he settled the default by paying Rs. 6,88,188/- to SEBI. The data analysis coupled with circumstantial evidence shows the script of M/s. Ginni Silk Mills Ltd. is a penny stock as evidence from BEIL SHARE PATTERN, which is used for routing unaccounted fund of beneficiaries. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 3,28,75,293/- on account of unexplained cash credit under section 69A of the IT Act, 1961 and addition of Rs. 6,57,506/- on account of alleged commission paid under section 69C of the IT Act, Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur 1961. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). The ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee discussed at para 6 to 6.3.6 pages 103 to 108 of the order after referring to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that entire addition is based on third party information gathered by the Investigation Wing which has not been independently subjected to verification by the AO. Also the AO has not provided the copy of such statements to the appellant, thus denying opportunity of cross examination to the appellant, who has prima facie discharged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various documentations including broker note / bills, bank statements for transactions routed through bank accounts and other stock exchange statements. Thus, the ld. CIT (A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now, aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee submitted his written submission as under :- “ Facts:- 1. The assessee is active investor in stock market possessing substantial experience and knowledge in stock market operation. He filed the return on 25.07.2016 declaring total income of Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur Rs.22,94,920/- comprising of exempt LTCG of Rs.1,06,77,049/- and short term capital gain of Rs.10,78,647/-. The short termcapital gain consists of gain on sale of shares of Gini Silk Mills Ltd. of Rs.3,28,51,440/-,gain on sale of other shares of Rs.4,04,95,909/- and loss on sale of other shares of Rs.7,22,67,811/-. 2. The AO issued notice u/s 148 at 30.06.2021 but in view of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashish Agarwal, such notice was considered as notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act. Thereafter order u/s 148A(d) at 23.07.2022 was passed on the ground that (refer para 3 of assessment order) as per information received from DDIT(Inv.), Delhi, Gini Silk Mills Ltd., a listed company, the entire shareholding was brought by the syndicate to provideaccommodation entries to the beneficiaries with the help of brokers and entry operators. Assessee is one of the beneficiary of accommodation entries of Rs.3,28,75,293/- in form of STCG which is not disclosed in the return by not accepting the explanation of assessee that he purchased 6,23,393 shares of Gini Silk Mills Ltd. in the year 2015 for Rs.4,48,50,991/- which were sold for Rs.7,77,02,440/- resulting into gain of Rs.3,28,51,449/- duly disclosed in return and the transactions are from Demat account of assessee and accordingly fresh notice u/s 148 dt. 23.07.2022 was issued. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee filed detailed reply countering the objection raised in the show cause notice which is reproduced by AO at Para 4, Pg4 to 15 of the order & requested to provide information & document referred in investigation wing report along with copy of statement recorded & opportunity to cross examine them. The AO, however,at Para 4.2,Pg 16 to 38 of the order after reproducing part of investigation report, observed at Para 5,Pg 39 to 42 that assessee has not disclosed the purchase of shares of Gini Silk Mills Ltd. on violation of whichhe settled the default by paying Rs.6,88,188/- to SEBI. The data analysis coupled with circumstantial evidence shows the script of Gini Silk Mills Ltd. is a penny stock as evidence from BEIL SHARE PATTERN which is used for routing unaccounted fund of beneficiaries.Accordingly he made addition of Rs.3,28,75,293/- u/s 69A of the Act and addition of Rs.6,57,506/- on account of alleged commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC after reproducing the submission of the assessee both on merit and on law, at Pg to 103 of the order, at Para 6,Pg 103 to 109 of the order after referring to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court & Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that entire addition is based on third party information gathered by the investigation wing which has not been independently subjected to verification by the Ld. AO. Also the Ld. AO has not provided the copy of such statements to the appellant, thus denying opportunity of cross examination to the appellant, who has prima facie discharged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various documentations including broker note/ bills, bank statements for transactions routed through bank accounts and other stock exchange statements. Thus, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO deserves to be deleted. In view of the decisions on merit, the legal issues raised were not decided. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur Submission:- 1. The assessee rely on detailed submission made before AO and Ld. CIT(A), NFAC and the decision of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC in deleting the additions made by AO. 2. The revenue has submitted a compilation of 79 cases with name and citation but none of these cases are applicable/relevant to the fact of assesse’s case. 3. The payment of Rs.6,88,188/- to SEBI for settlement of default on account of delayed disclosure of purchase of shares of Gini Silk Mills Ltd. as required by SEBI regulation doesn’t make the transaction of shares of Gini Silk Mills Ltd. as bogus rather it support the case of the assessee that its transactions are genuine. 4. It is submitted that both purchase & sale of shares of Gini Silk Mills Ltd. are through Demat account, SEBI registered stock broker, through banking channel and nothing is brought on record by AO that transaction in these shares are accommodation entries. Neither the copy of statement nor opportunity to cross examination was provided. No material is brought on record for alleging these transactions as penny stock transactions except by relying on the investigation report which was not provided to the assessee. 5. The assessee has disclosed the gain on sale of shares of Gini Silk Mills Ltd. in the return of income which is accepted by AO and therefore again making the addition resulted into double addition. Hence the grounds raised by department be dismissed by upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A). 6. So far as assessee’s cross objection is concerned it is submitted that approval for issue of notice u/s 148 dated 23/07/2022 (copy enclosed) was obtained from PCIT-1 (Jaipur). As per section 151 as applicable when the notice u/s 148 was issued, the specified authority for the purpose of section 148 and section 148A is PCCIT if more than 3 years have been lapsed from the end of the relevant AY. For ready reference section 151 is reproduced as under:- “Sanction for issue of notice 151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be,— (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.” In the present case, notice u/s 148 was issued after more than 3 years has lapsed from the end of the relevant AY and therefore the approval should have been obtained from PCCIT and not from Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur PCIT. Hence the notice issued is illegal, bad in law and therefore the consequent assessment proceedings be quashed. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- Ramachandran ShivanVs. ITO (2024) 244 DTR 233 (Mad.) (HC) Validity of sanction for issuing the orders u/s 148A(d) and the notices u/s 148 should be tested with reference to amended sec. 151. If so tested, it is evident that sanction was not granted by an authority specified under cl. (ii) of sec. 151. Hence, the orders u/s 148A(d) and the notices u/s 148 are quashed. Mrs. ChitraSupekarVs. ITO (2023) 292 Taxman 511 (Bombay) (HC) Where AO passed order u/s 148A(d) after expiry of three years from end of relevant AY without taking approval of PCCIT as contemplated by section 151(ii), same would invalidate reassessment proceedings. Fives India Engineering & Projects (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 298 Taxman 762 (Mad.) (HC) Where revenue issued notice u/s 148 to assessee after lapse of more than three years from end of relevant AY after obtaining approval from Chief Commissioner, since Chief Commissioner was not a specified authority under clause (ii) of section 151, reassessment proceedings were liable to be quashed. Ajay Duggal Vs. ITO ITA No.5612/Del/2024 order dt.30.07.2025 (Delhi) (Trib.) The relevant Para 7 to 10 of this order reads as under:- 7. Heard rival contentions, perused the case laws relied on. Admittedly in this case a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.07.2022 after obtaining the prior approval from Pr. CIT-15, Delhi for reopening of assessment for the AY 2016-17. As per the provisions of section 151(2) for reopening an assessment by issue of a notice u/s 148 of the Act beyond a period of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year approval has to be obtained from thePr. Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. But whereas in the case of the assessee approval was obtained from Pr. CIT making the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 as bad in law. 8. We observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra) decided the time limits of getting an approval from the appropriate authority u/s 151 of the Act before issue of notice u/s 148 to the cases where the Revenue has invoked the provisions of section 148 of the Act pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are as under: - …. 9. We further find that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manish Financials vs. ACIT (supra) considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra) heldthat notice dated 29.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act with the prior approval of Pr. Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur CIT for reopening an assessment for the AY 2016-17 beyond a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year is bad in law. While holding so the Tribunal observed as under: - “14. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. In assessee's case for AY 2016-17 pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agrawal, the AO passed an order under section 148(d) of the Act and issued a notice under section 148 on 30.07.2022. From the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clean that the though the prior approval under section 148A(b) and 148(d) were waived in terms of the decision of Ashish Agarwal (supra), for issue of notice under section 148A(a) and under section 148 on or after 1 April 2021, the prior approval should be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime. The provisions of section 151 of the Act under the new regime read as under: Sanction for issue of notice. 151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be, - (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. 15. In assessee's case from the perusal of para 3 of the notice issued under section 148 for AY 2016-17 we notice that the same is issued with the prior approval of Pr.CIT-19 Mumbai accorded on 29.07.2022 vide reference No. Pr. CIT- 19/148/2022-23 and this fact is not contravened by the Id DR. For AY 2016-17, the period of three years have elapsed as of 31.03.2020 and the notice is issued beyond three years on 30.07.2022. Therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the approval should have been obtained under the amended provisions of section 151 (ii) of the Act i.e. the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner whereas the approval has been obtained from Pr.CIT as stated in the notice under section 148 itself. Therefore we see merit in the contention of the assessee that the notice under section 148 for AY 2016-17 is issued without obtaining the prior approval from the appropriate authority. Accordingly we hold that the notice under section 148 is invalid and the consequent assessment under section 147 is liable to be quashed.” 10. In the case before us the Assessing Officer while issuing notice u/s 148 dated 25.07.2022 for reopening of an assessment for the AY 2016-17 obtained prior approval from Pr. CIT instead of Pr. Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner of Income Tax under the provisions of section 151(2) of the Act and therefore we hold that the notice issued u/s 148 for reopening an assessment for AY 2016-17 is bad in law and consequently the assessment made u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act pursuant to such notice is bad in law and void ab initio. Hence, the same is hereby quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur 7. It is also submitted that order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act dt. 23.07.2022 and subsequent issued u/s 148 of the Act dt. 23.07.2022 is bad in law as it is not in accordance with section 151A of the Act read with Notification No.18/2022 dt. 29.03.2022 issued by the CBDT. Section 151A of Act is reproduced as under:- Faceless assessment of income escaping assessment 151A. (1) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or issuance of notice under section 148 [or conducting of enquiries or issuance of show-cause notice or passing of order under section 148A] or sanction for issue of such notice under section 151, so as to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability by— (a) eliminating the interface between the income-tax authority and the assessee or any other person to the extent technologically feasible; (b) optimising utilisation of the resources through economies of scale and functional specialisation; (c) introducing a team-based assessment, reassessment, recomputation or issuance or sanction of notice with dynamic jurisdiction. (2) The Central Government may, for the purpose of giving effect to the scheme made under sub-section (1), by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any of the provisions of this Act shall not apply or shall apply with such exceptions, modifications and adaptations as may be specified in the notification: Provided that no direction shall be issued after the 31st day of March, 2022. (3) Every notification issued under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall, as soon as may be after the notification is issued, be laid before each House of Parliament.” Following section 151A of the Act, the CBDT issued Notification No.18/2022 dt.29.03.2022. As per the said notification, the CBDT has categorically mentioned that notice u/s 148 of the Act can be issued only through automated allocation system in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board and in a faceless manner to the extent provided under section 144B of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur Relevant extracts are as under:- “3. Scope of the Scheme.––For the purpose of this Scheme,–– (a) assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 of the Act, (b) issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice, and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee.” In the instant case, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dt.23.07.2022 has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) which is not in accordance with the Notification No.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 issued by the CBDT and therefore is void-ab-initio. Since the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act is void- ab-initio, subsequent proceedings and the order passed u/s 147 of the Act is illegal and bad in law.Further, the order dt.23.07.2022 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act has been passed by the JAO which is not in accordance with the provisions of section 151A of the Act and therefore the entire assessment proceedings are bad in law. Reliance in this connection is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Telangana High Court in case of Deepanjan Roy Vs. ADIT(IT) Writ Petition No.23573 of 2024 order dt. 29.08.2024 where the order passed u/s 148A(d) and consequential notice u/s 148 dt. 02.04.2024 issued by JAO instead of NFAC (FAO) was held as void, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The SLP filed by the department against the impugned order was also dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dt. 16.07.2025. Copy of both the orders is enclosed. Thus the order passed by AO is not legally sustainable.” 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We would first take up Cross Objection of the assessee for adjudication and thereafter the appeal of the department. Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur 6.1. In the Cross Objection, assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC in not deciding the ground of the assessee challenging initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as approval was not taken from appropriate authority u/s 151 of the Act. We have perused the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23.07.2022. This notice is issued after obtaining the prior approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur. The notice under section 148 is issued after 3 years of the end of the relevant assessment year. As per section 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the sanction for issue of notice under section 148 is required to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax if more than 3 years have been lapsed from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. The period of 3 years in the present case has ended on 31.03.2020. The notice under section 148 is issued on 23.07.2022. Hence, the sanction for issue of notice is required to be taken from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and not from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court, Hon’ble Bombay High Court and ITAT Delhi Bench as referred by the assessee, supra, are applicable in the present case. Thus the notice issued under section 148 is illegal and bad in law and the assessment order passed by the A.O. Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur pursuant to such notice is quashed. Thus, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed. 6.2 So far as the appeal of the revenue is concerned, we noted that assessee is a regular investor in shares and securities. The Demat Account of the assessee runs in 140 pages. The script under consideration is purchased through demat account and sold through demat account. Considering these facts the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has given following finding at para 6.3.5 and 6.3.6 at page 107 and 108 of its order which are reproduced as under: - “ 6.3.5 The appellant has pleaded that the following criteria are substantiated and fulfilled by the appellant, hence, the onus of proving the genuine nature of the transactions has been satisfied by the appellant. 1. The payment for purchase was through account payee cheque and the purchase and sale was through a Demat account maintained by an independent agency. 2. The shares were sold through registered share broker by an online transaction and as per the share prices prevalent on that day. 3. The ld. AO failed to contradict the evidence adduced by the respondent to support the claim of Short-term capital gain. 4. The statements were recorded at the back of the respondent, without affording an opportunity of cross examination. Hence, the evidence is not evidence in the eyes of law. 5. Further the statements recorded nowhere state that the transactions of the respondent with regard to sale and purchase of the shares of the company was an accommodating entry. 6.3.6. In this case, it can be summarized that the entire disallowance is based on third party information gathered by the Investigation Wing which has not been independently subjected to verification by the Ld. AO. Also the Ld. AO has not provided the copy of such statements to the appellant, thus denying opportunity of cross examination to the appellant, who has prima facie discharged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various documentations including broker note / bills, bank statements for Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur transactions routed through bank accounts and other stock exchange statements. Thus, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO deserves to be deleted. The Grounds No. 1 to 4 of the appeal are, therefore, ALLOWED.” In view of the findings given by the ld. CIT (Appeals) as reproduced herein above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) in deleting the disallowances made by the AO. We fully agree with the findings of Ld. CIT (A) and thus the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ xxu xks;y ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (GAGAM GOYAL) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30/10/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- DCIT, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "