HANS RAJ AGARWAL,VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR V. ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR

CO 1/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) against Hans Raj Agarwal concerning the validity of a reassessment notice issued for the assessment year 2016-17. The reassessment was based on allegations that Agarwal had engaged in transactions involving the scrip of M/s Yamini Investment Company Ltd, which were purportedly used to book bogus long-term capital gains. The original assessment had accepted Agarwal's return, but subsequent investigations led to a reassessment. The Tribunal's decision focused on the procedural validity of the reassessment notice, particularly the requirement for sanction under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, which was not properly obtained in this case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 39736 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Infinity.com Financial Securities Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RINES H
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA VIJAY; JAIDEEP MALIK
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Corroborative evidences; Period of limitation; Reopening of assessment; Capital Gains; Accommodation entries; Competent authority; Transactions in derivatives; Reason to believe; Share purchase agreement; Scheme of amalgamation; Tangible material; Bogus
• Section: 147; 144; 143(3); 142(1); 250; 113; 191; 20

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 aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 The ACIT , NCR Building, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Hans Raj Agarwal, NC1/5, Sector No. 1, Main Road, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABBPA8231D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent Cross Objections No. 1/JPR/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024) fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 Hans Raj Agarwal, NC1/5, Sector No. 1, Main Road, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ACIT , NCR Building, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABBPA8231D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Aditya Vijay, Adv. & Shri Jaideep Malik, Adv. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 11/03/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 vkns'k@ORDER 2 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . This common order is to dispose of the above captioned appeal filed by the department and separate appeal filed by the assessee in the form of Cross-objections No. 1/JPR/2025 on 11.02.2025, as the issues raised before us pertain to challenge to the impugned order 14.08.2024, passed by NFAC, u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), and because Learned AR and Learned DR have argued the same together. The matter relates to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Appeal in the form of Cross-objections is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 86 days in filing the same. 3. Vide impugned order dated 14.08.2024, the assessment order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer has been set aside . 4. As is available from the assessment order dated 17.05.2023, the Assessing Officer assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 19,18,18,106. Assessment order was passed u/s 147/143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Thereby, variations have been made by the Assessing Officer. Said variations have been tabulated in para 5 of the assessment order, as under:- 3 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal S. No. Description Amount (in INR) 1. Income as per return of income filed 4483340/- 2. Income as computed u/s 143(1)(a) 0 3. Variation in respect of issue as discussed above. 187334766/- 4. Variation in respect of issue of <> (if any) 5. Total income/loss determined as per the above proposal 19,18,18,106/- 5. It is a case of the department that its Investigation Wing on 16.05.2018 conducted a search and survey operation u/s 132/133 of the Act as regards the group known as Dutta and Tayagi Group. After enquiry, it was found that scrip of M/s Yamini Investment Company Ltd (in short ‘YICL’) listed in BSE having scrip code-511012” was managed and controlled to the benefit of certain persons by providing bogus long term capital gain/loss to the beneficiaries, by receiving cash. It was also found that the entry providers did not have creditworthiness. Then it is stated to have come to light that the assessee, named above was one of the beneficiary who traded in the scrip of the above said company during the financial year 2015-16, relevant to assessment year 2016-17, in order to get exempt long term capital gain/loss in its books of accounts, and that the assessee also took advantage for different financial years. 4 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal 6. It is also stated to have come to the notice of the department that total value of the scrip sold by the assessee during financial year 2015-16 was Rs. 18,18,78,414/-. That is how, the case of the assessee was reopened and notices u/s 147/148 and 148 of the Act were issued. 7. It is also case of the department that the assessee failed to file to return of income in compliance to the above said notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was served with questionnaire accompanied by notices u/s 142(1) of the Act. In reply thereto, the assessee put forth his version. 8. At page 41 and 42 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer made following observations which led him to the making of addition of Rs. 18,73,34,766/- i.e. “Rs. 18,18,78,414/-being the consideration received by the assessee towards the transaction in the above named scrip of the above named company” AND Rs. 54,56,352/- i.e. 3% of the above said amount, said to have been paid by way of commission. 9. When the assessment order was challenged by the assessee before NFAC, Learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal. While discussing only ground No. 7 raised in the appeal, Learned CIT(A) observed that as regards other ground Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 16 the 5 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal same had become infructuous and as such, no further adjudication was required on merits. In this way, Learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the additions. 10. Let’s see as to what was Ground No. 7 raised by the assessee before Learned CIT(A). Said ground, as reproduced at page 2 of the impugned order passed by NFAC, reads as under:- “7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the impugned assessment order dated 17.05.2023 passed u/s 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bereft of merits and law as already the assessment proceedings were initiated in present case of assessee and the issue of capital gain on sale of shares of M/s Yamini Investment Pvt. Ltd was specifically raised by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment however after considering the same the Ld. Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) on 11/12/2018 accepting the return of income of the assessee, thus the impugned assessment order passed dated 17.05.2023 is merely a review under garb of reassessment proceedings. Thus, the impugned assessment order dated 17.05.2023 deserved to be quashed.” 11. As is available from page 14 to 17 of the impugned order, in support of abovesaid ground No.7, following submissions were put forth before NFAC, on behalf of the appellant-assessee, :- “Submissions of Appellant on above ground are as follows: 1. the scrutiny assessment in the case of the Appellant has already been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and all the aspects in regard to the Capital gain arising on the sale of shares of Yamini Investment was considered various time, thus the present proceedings has been carried out for the verification purpose 6 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal which is not permissible as per the reassessment provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. b) In the present case the Ld. AO has already carried out the scrutiny assessment while passing the order u/s 143(3)dated 11/12/2018 and during the scrutiny assessment all the information was provided by the Appellant to the Ld.AO. Further the Ld.AO on as many as on 8 occasions issued the detailed notices to the Appellant enquiring about the capital gain arisen on the sale of shares of Yamini Investments and the Appellant each time replied to the same and provided each and every detail related to the transaction. The details of the notices issued by the revenue and reply to the same by Appellant are tabulated as under: S no. Notice date Reply date 12/09/2018 (PB pg no. 14-15) 17/09/2018 (PB pg No. 16-38) 2. 17/09/2018 (PB pg no. 38) 20/09/2018 (PB pg no. 40-49) 3. 29/09/2018 (PB pg no. 50) 27/09/2018 (PB pg no. 51-110) 4. 03/10/2018 (PB pg no. 111-112) 07/10/2018 (PB pg no. 113-123) 5. 10/10/2018 (PB pg no. 124) 12/10/2018 (PB pg no. 125-145) 6. 19/10/2018 (PB pg no. 146) 24/10/2018 (PB pg no. 147-148) 7. 05/11/2018 (PB pg no. 149-150) 11/11/2018 (PB pg no. 151-152) 8. 12/11/2018 (PB pg no. 153-154) 13/11/2018 (PB pg no. 155-156) 1. Thus, after considering all the replies and evidences on several occasions the Ld.AO was, please to accept the returned income of the assessee by passing the order u/s143(3) dated 11/12/2018(PB Pg No. 157-163). 2. Thus, Ld.AO by initiating the present reassessment proceedings are merely reviewing its own decision which is not permissible in law. 3. Because it is merely a fresh application of mind by a different Assessing Officer to the same set of facts. When the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the Assessing Officer is not entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for reassessment. Even if the Assessing Officer, who passed the assessment order, may have raised too many legal inferences from the facts disclosed, on that account the Assessing Officer, who has decided to reopen assessment, is not competent to reopen assessment proceedings. Where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to reopen the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view. 4. Because the Appellant submitted all the documents during the scrutiny assessment such as copy of demat account, demat transaction statement, copy of broker note for sale of shares of Yamini Investment, Bank Statement for the year consideration, share certificate of Anax Trade Limited, Copy of Scheme of 7 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal amalgamation of Anax Trade with Yamini Investment and contract bills of broker. Thus, the Ld.AO had all the documents with him before passing the scrutiny assessment order dated 11/12/2018 and after considering all such documents the return income of the Appellant was accepted. Thus, it is inte law that the reassessment can only be done on the basis of new material and in the present case. There is no new material to which a reference is to b found and the entire basis for reopening the assssment is the disclosure which has been made by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings. Further during the alleged reassessment proceedings the same information was provided by the Appellant to the Ld AO again and again as there was new material. Judgments relied by the Appellant in his defence 1. Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 312/320 ITR 561 held that one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words reason to believe failing which, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of mere change of opinion which cannot be per se reason to reopen. Apex Court also held that the Assessing Officer has no power to review and he has power to reopen provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusions that there is escapement of income from assessment and there was failure on the part of assessee to truly and fully disclose material facts. 2. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC)held that even if the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer from the facts disclosed by the assessee during the course of original assessment is erroneous, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment to change that erroneous conclusion once reached at 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Infinity.com Financial Securities Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 212(SC) Dated OCTOBER 17, 2022 SLP dismissed against High Court order that where during assessment proceedings assessee-company had furnished material related to alleged purchase and sale of shares and capital gain/foss made therein and Assessing Officer after considering said details had conclusively taken a view on same, reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147based on reconsideration of same material that was available at time of original proceedings would tantamount to change of opinion and thus would be liable to be set aside.” 8 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal 12. While dealing with above said submissions raised on ground No. 7 challenging the order dated 17.05.2023, Learned CIT(A), observed in para 4.5 to 4.17, at page 39 to 44, as under:- “4.5 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of the appellant and evidences on record. I find that the scrutiny assessment in the case of the appellant has already been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and all the aspects in regard to the Capital gain arising on the sale of shares of Yamini Investment was considered various time. Further the AO on as many as on 8 occasions issued the detailed notices to the appellant enquiring about the capital gain arisen on the sale of shares of Yamini Investments and the appellant each time replied to the same and provided each and every detail related to the transaction. The details of the notices issued by the revenue and reply to the same by Appellant are tabulated as under: S. no. Notice date Reply date 1. 12.09.2018 17.09.2018 2. 17.09.2018 20.09.2018 3. 29.09.2018 27.09.2018 4. 03.10.2018 07.10.2018 5. 10.10.2018 12.10.2018 6. 19.10.2018 24.10.2018 7. 05.11.2018 11.11.2018 8. 12.11.2018 13.11.2018 4.6 It is seen that AO during the scrutiny assessment issued the letter dated 12/09/2018 whereby appellant was asked to submit the details through e-filing which also included the demat account for F.Y. 2015-16, details of work done in F&O and form no 10DDB, computation of income of LTCG for the F.Y. 2015-16 and the source of investment in shares/F&O transaction with supporting evidences. The appellant in pursuance to the letter dated 12/09/2018 submitted the requisite details vide its reply dated 17/09/2018. The AO again vide letter dated 17/09/2018 directed the appellant to provide the ledger in the books of broker of the Share Transactions done in the A.Y. 2016-17. Appellant in pursuance to the same provided the ledger of Swastika Investment limited in which all the transactions of the shares were shown by the broker which was carried out by the Appellant during the year under consideration. The AO yet again vide clarification letter dated 26/9/2018 directed the appellant to submit the 9 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal copies of all the bills relating to share transaction made in the A.Y. 2016-17. In compliance to the same, appellant also submitted the contract note cum bill of Swastika Investment limited which disclosed the name of Script \"Yamini Investment Limited and its sell price, date and net amount paid to the client ie, appellant in present case. 4.7 The AO on 03/10/2018 again issued the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act whereby he raised the specific query in regard to the shares of the Yamini Investment Company Limited and also directed the Appellant to provide the demat account from the date of Purchase of the share of Yamini Investment Company Limited to the date 31/03/2016 and also the purchase bill/contract notes of share purchase of Yamini Investment Company Limited. The appellant in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act vide its reply dated 07/10/2018 submitted before the AO that the Appellant was allotted Four Lakh Shares of Anax Com Trade Limited in the year 2012 which was de materialized in DP of Alankit Assignment Limited on 11/04/2013. Further, it was submitted that the shares of Anax Com Trade Limited were split into Re.1 share instead of Rs. 10 share and accordingly appellant was allotted 40,00,000 shares of Anax Com Trade Limited of Re. 1. It was submitted that later on, Anax Com Trade Limited was merged with the Yamini Investment Limited whereby the appellant was allotted 32 lacs share of Yamini Investment Limited against 40 lacs shares of Anax Com Trade Limited. Thus, the appellant vide its reply dated 07/10/2018 explained the shares transaction in detail to AO. 4.8 The Appellant also attached all the documents namely share certificate, DP statement of Appellant dated 11/03/2013and 01/01/2014 and demat transaction statement for A.Y. 2016-17. The AO yet again vide its clarification letter dated 10/10/2018 directed the appellant submit the scheme of amalgamation as mentioned in reply dated 07/10/2018 to which the appellant provided the scheme of amalgamation to the AO vide its reply dated 12.10.2018. The AO yet again vide clarification letter dated 19/10/2018 directed the appellant to submit the bank statements from which payments for primary allotment of shares of Anax Com Trade was made. In pursuance to the same, appellant provided the bank statement of his which shows the payment made for allotment of shares of Anax Com Trade. The AO further vide its show cause notice dated 05/11/2018 directed the appellant to provide some other detail in regard to the payment made for allotment of shares of Anax Com Trade Limited to which the Appellant replied and submitted the details vide its reply dated 11/11/2018. The AO further vide its clarification letter dated 12/11/2018 again requested the details in regard to the share transaction to which the appellant replied and submitted the reply dated 10 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal 13/11/2018 along with ledger showing the loan amount to repaid to Vistaar Infra Property Pvt Ltd taken for purchase of shares of Anax in the year2012. It is seen that the AO after considering all the documents and replies of the appellant on various occasions passed the order u/s143(3) dated 11/12/2018 accepting the returned income of the appellant at Rs. 45,83,340 without making any addition or disallowances. 4.9 The appellant submitted all the documents during the scrutiny assessment such as copy of demat account, demat transaction statement, copy of broker note for sale of shares of Yamini Investment, Bank Statement for the year consideration, share certificate of Anax Trade Limited, Copy of Scheme of amalgamation of Anax Trade with Yamini Investment and contract bills of broker. Various courts have held that the reassessment can only be done on the basis of new material and in the present case there is no new material to which a reference is to be found. 4.10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) had held that one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words reason to believe failing which, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of mere change of opinion which cannot be per se reason to reopen. Apex Court also held that the Assessing Officer has no power to review and he has power to reopen provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusions that there is escapement of income from assessment and there was failure on the part of assessee to truly and fully disclose material facts. 4.11 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Marico Ltd. has dismissed SLP filed by the department and confirmed the decision of Bombay High Court. The Hon'ble High Court at para 12 observed as under: \"Thus we find that the reasons in support of the impugned notice is the very issue in respect of which the Assessing Officer has raised the query dated 25 september 2017 during the assessment proceedings and the petitioner had responded to the same by its letters dated 10December 2017 and 21 December 2017 justifying its stand. The non rejection of explanation in the Assessment order would amount to the Assessing officer accepting the view of the assesse, thus taking a viewforming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be completely without jurisdiction in the present facts. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 27 March 2019 is quashed and set aside.\" 11 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal 4.12 I find that various courts have settled that the AO cannot reopen concluded assessment merely to re-examine any transaction for non-application of his mind on the materials already with him. In the case of Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held \"After discovery of the primary facts relating to the transactions evidenced by the drafts it was for the officer to make the necessary enquiries and draw proper inference as to whether the amounts represented by the drafts could be treated as part of the total income of the appellant. This the officer did not do It was plainly a case of oversight and it could not be said that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts He could not, thereafter, take recourse to Section 147(a) to remedy the error resulting from his own oversight.\" 4.13 In the case of Calcutta Discount co. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the assessee disclosed all primary facts, his duty ends and it is for the AO to draw conclusion from the same \"Does the duty however extend beyond the full and truthful disclosure of all primary facts? In our opinion, the answer to this question must be in the negative. Once all the primary facts are before the assessing auchonty, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody else far less the assessee to tol the assessing authority what inferences-whether of facts or law should be drawn.\" 4.14 In the case of ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 (TR 239, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: \"The High Court was right in holding that the Income Tax officer had no valid reasons to believe that the respondent had omitted or failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts and consequently had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessments for the four years in question. Having second thoughts on the same material does not warrant the initiation of a proceeding under sec. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr. Manchanda, leamed counsel for the appellant. took us through several sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be presumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law has not changed since the original assessments were made and it was 12 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal open to the Income Tax Officer to make that presumption at the time. If he should have but did not do so then, he cannot avail of sec. 147 to correct that mistake.\" 4.15 Perusal of the original assessment passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 11.12.2018 reveals that the AO had made complete verification of details and records furnished including details in respect of share transactions. The judicial principal as set out in the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (41 ITR 191) wherein the Apex Court had held that even if the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer from the facts disclosed by the assessee during the course of original assessment is erroneous, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment to change that erroneous conclusion once reached at. 4.16 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Infinity.com Financial Securities Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 212(SC) Dated October 17, 2022 dismissed SLP against Bombay High Court order in Writ Petition No.3497 of 2019, that where during assessment proceedings assessee- company had furnished material related to alleged purchase and sale of shares and capital gain/loss made therein and Assessing Officer after considering said details had conclusively taken a view on same, reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 based on reconsideration of same material that was available at time of original proceedings would tantamount to change of opinion and thus would be liable to be set aside. In the said case, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had held as under:- \"6 Therefore, all material facts had been disclosed by petitioner in the course of the regular assessment proceedings and the reasons recorded for initiation of reassessment too give reference only to the details already submitted by petitioner in the course of the original assessment proceedings and nothing more. It is a well settled judicial principle that the true test of income chargeable to tax escaping assessment is whether there exists fresh \"tangible material\" on the basis of which an appropriate conclusion can be reached. In the absence of such fresh material, the reassessment proceedings would be invalid. This principle has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court in various rulings. This Court has held that reassessment based on a reconsideration of material already available on record at the time of the original assessment proceedings Gauri Gaekwad 5/6 420.WP-3497- 2019.doc tantamounts to a change of opinion and would be invalid. Further, since the relevant facts, which were already on record at the time 13 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal of the original assessment proceedings, also form the basis for the initiation of the subject reassessment proceedings, it is amply clear that there was no fresh material that could have come to the notice of respondent no.1 to warrant reopening of assessment. Information received from DDIT (Inv.) regarding petitioner indulging in illegitimate activity of booking bogus profit/loss on scrip of M/s. Divine Multimedia (India) Ltd. would not by itself constitute any fresh material for reopening assessment. Information received from DDIT (Inv.) has already been examined and inquired into by respondent no.1 in the original assessment proceedings where after submitting various details with regard to details of investments, details of short term capital gains and long term capital gains the same had been satisfactorily explained and accepted by respondent no.1. 7. In our view, the notice dated 30 th March 2019 issued under Section 148 of the said Act is issued without jurisdiction and requires to be set aside. The consequential order dated 15 th October 2019 also requires to be set aside.” 4.17 In summing up, in the present case, I find that the scrutiny assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 11.12.2018 in the case of the appellant for the A.Y 2016-17 wherein all the information related to the share capital had been provided by the appellant and after due application of mind, the assessment order was passed. In view of the above facts and discussion, and respectfully, following the various judicial decisions including the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above, I am of the considered view that reopening and subsequent reassessment Sec. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act was not valid and the same is quashed. The appeal on Ground No 7 is thus treated as allowed.” Appeal in the form of Cross-objections No. 1/JPR/2025 13. It may be mentioned here that the appeal in the form of Cross Objections is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. The impugned order passed by NFAC is dated 14.08.2024. Appeal in the form of Cross objections came to be presented on 11. 02.2025. 14 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal Surprisingly, the Registry raised a deficiency note that the appeal in the form of Cross Objections came to be filed only 11 days delay, whereas the assessee-objector-applicant has claimed delay of 86 days in filing thereof. Even Learned DR for the department has rightly pointed out that cross-objections are delayed not only by 11 days, and that same have been filed only after this fact was pointed out in the course of arguments on appeal that the assessee could not raise legal ground for want of any cross-objection. Assessee-applicant has alleged that the assessee was required to file Cross Objections u/s 253(4) of the Act within 30 days of the receipt of notice i.e. by 17.11.2024. As per record, notice of appeal filed by the department was issued by the Registry to the assessee on 16.10.2024. As per column No.7 of the Cross-objections, the assessee was in receipt of notice of appeal on 17.10.2024 i.e. on the very next day of its issuance by the Registry. Period of 30 days was to be counted from 18.10.2024, while excluding the day the notice was delivered. 15 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal Therefore, it can safely be said that the report made by the Registry about the period of delay is wrong. Registry to be diligent in making report about delay in filing of the appeals. 14. Be that as it may, on the point of condonation of delay, Ld. AR for the assessee-applicant has submitted that for the purpose of appeal, the assessee engaged another Counsel, and that on 19.12.2024 i.e. date fixed for hearing, adjournment was sought on behalf of the department. He has further submitted that he was having bona fide impression that appeal by way of cross-objections was not required to be filed, the reason being that the impugned order was to be challenged only a legal ground i.e. challenging the validity of notice under section 148 of the Act for want of approval of competent authority, but in the course of arguments, he deemed it appropriate to file cross-objections so that the legal ground is adjudicated as per law. Therefore, the contention is that in the given situation, delay in filing of the cross-objections be condoned. 15. In support of his contention, Ld. AR for the assessee has relied on following 4 decisions and extracted in the application certain portions from the said decisions:-  Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471. 16 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal  M/s GMG Engineering Industries vs. M/s Issa Green Power Solution (Civil Appeal No. 4473/2015) with A.C. Govindaraj and Ors. vs. M. Krishnamoorthy & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 4473/2015_  ITO vs. Meghalaya Bonded Warehouse (1997) 60 ITD 219 (Gau.) 16. The impugned order is dated 14.08.2024. U/s 253(4) of the Act, Cross Objections may be filed within 30 days of the receipt of notice of appeal. As per claimed by the assessee himself the Cross Objections were to be filed by 17.11.2024, but new Counsel having been engaged, Cross Objections could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. 17. Learned DR for the department has rightly pointed out that cross- objections are delayed not only by 11 days, and that same have been filed only after this fact was pointed out in the course of arguments on appeal that the assessee could not raise legal ground for want of any cross- objection. 18. Per contra, Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that such a legal objection can be raised by the assessee at any stage of the appellate proceedings, and without filing of Cross Objections, but in order to avoid any technical objection, the same has been filed. Ld. AR has categorically stated in that he was under bonafide impression that no Cross Objections is required to be filed. 17 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal 19. A perusal of the Cross Objections would reveal that only a legal ground as to the validity of notice 148 of the Act, is sought to be raised. This fact is not being disputed even from the side of the department. As is available from the grounds of appeal submitted before NFAC, the assessee raised a specific ground No.4 that the assessment order under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act was invalid for want of sanction under section 151. Section 151 pertains to sanction for issue of notice under section 148 and section 148A. 20. In the given situation, when AR for the applicant has candidly pleaded that he was under the bonafide impression that for raising such a legal ground no cross-objection was required to be filed, and that he could straightway argue the same in the appeal filed by the department, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the cross-objections. We order accordingly. Cross-Objections by the Assessee 21. By way of Cross Objections, the assessee has challenged the impugned order raising the ground that Learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not holding the notice u/s 148 of the Act as invalid, and bad in law. 18 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that said notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued beyond the prescribed period of 3 years, and that for the purpose of its issuance beyond the said period of 3 years, as per provisions of section 151 of the Act approval was required to be taken from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Direction General of Income Tax. Further, it has been contended that in this case approval having been obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, notice u/s 148 of the Act was invalid and bad in law, as per decision by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024). The contention is that for want of proper sanction, the assessment order deserves to be set aside. 22. On the other hand, Learned DR for the department has relied on decisions in case titled as Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, Civil Appeal No.3005 of 2022, decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 4.5.2022 and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No.8629 of 2024, decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 3.10.2024. 23. There is no dispute that the directions in Ashish Agarwal’s case (supra) were to apply to all the ninety thousand reassessment notices 19 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal issued under the old regime during the period from 1.4.2021 and 30.6.2021. 24. Herein, admittedly, reassessment notice was initially issued by the Assessing Officer on 22.4.2021. This fact finds mention in para 4.2 of the impugned order. Admittedly, on account of decision in Ashish Agarwal’s case the Assessing Officer issued fresh notice dated 25.5.2022 to comply with the directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court. 25. As per para 113 of the decision in Ashish Agarwal’s case, to assume jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act with respect to the relevant assessment years, the Assessing Officer was required to issue notice within the period prescribed under section 149(1) of the new regime read with TOLA; and also to obtain the previous approval of the authority specified under section 151; that a notice issued without complying with the preconditions shall be invalid as the same would affect the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the new regime, in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. Admittedly, a reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit, would be 20 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal time-barred, as per decision by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal’s case. 26. Here, the question involved is not that the reassessment notice came to be issued beyond the surviving time limit. The question is about grant of sanction under section 151 of the Act by the proper authority. 27. In Rajeev Bansal’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of approval and the competent authority, as regards notice u/s 148 of the Act, observed as under:- \"73. Section 151 imposex a check upon the power of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtains the sanction of the specified authority before issuing a notice under section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assesses from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments. A table representing the prescription under the old and new regime is set out below: Regime Time limits Specified authority Section 151(2) the old regime Before expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year Joint Commissioner Section 151(1) the old regime After expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner Section 151(i) the new regime Three years or less than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director Section 151(ii) the new regime More than Three years have elapsed from the end Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal 21 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal of the relevant assessment year Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General 74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income escaping was more than Rupees one lakh; (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 75 After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under Section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of Ashish Agarwal (supra), after I April 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime. The effect of Section 151 of the new regime is thus: (i) If income escaping assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of three years; and (ii) If income escaping assessment is more than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) after three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. 76. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under Section 148 to issue a 22 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151 (ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the \"relevant assessment year. Thus, non- compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limits prescribed under Section 151 affects their jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148. 77. Parliament enacted TOLA to ensure that the interests of the Revenue are not defeated because the assessing officer could not comply with the pre-conditions due to the difficulties that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 3(1) of TOLA relaxes the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021. TOLA will accordingly extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(1) has an extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) has time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval. The time limit for Section 151 of the old regime expires on 31 March 2021 because the new regime comes into effect on 1 April 2021. 78. For example, the three year time limit for assessment year 2017-2018 falls for completion on 31 March 2021. It falls during the time period of 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, contemplated under Section 3(1) of TOLA. Resultantly, the authority specified under Section 151 (1) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30 June 2021. 79. Under Finance Act 2021, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the specified authorities at four stages: a. Section 148A(a) to conduct any enquiry, if required, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; b. Section 148A(b) - to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving upon them a show cause notice as to why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued based on the information that suggests 23 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It must be noted that this requirement has been deleted by the Finance Act 2022; c. Section 148A(d) - to pass an order deciding whether or not it is a fit case for issuing a notice under Section 148; and d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice. 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts \"shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148-A(b).\" Further, this Court dispensed with the requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under Section 148A(a). Under Section 148A(b), an assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from the specified authorities under Section 151 for Section 148A(b). It is well established that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142, is not bound by the procedural requirements of law. 130 81 This Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) directed the assessing officers to ‘’ pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assesses concerned.’’ Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime \"after following the procedure as required under Section 148-A.’’ Although this Court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under Section 148A(a) and Section 148.4(b), it did not waive the requirement for Section 148A(d) and Section 148. Therefore, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable.” 28. From the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal’s case, it transpires that though prior approval u/s 148A(b) and 24 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal 148(d) was waived in terms of decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal case, for issuance of notice u/s 148A(a) and 148 on or after 1-04-2021, prior approval was required to be obtained from the appropriate authority specified u/s 151 of the New Regime. For ready reference Section 151 needs to be reproduced. It reads as under:- “Sanction for issue of notice. 151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 1484 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.” 29. Herein, alongwith the written submissions, Learned DR for the department has submitted report from the Assessing Officer. As per para 3 of said report from the AO, the assessee was issued notice dated 22.5.2021 under section 148 of the Act after obtaining sanction under section 151 from the JCIT, Range-4, Jaipur; that 25 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal subsequently, an opportunity of being heard as per provisions of section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assesee with prior approval from the competent authority vide DIN and Notice dated 25.5.2022. In said report, the Assessing Officer has further reported that the competent authority for approving the proposal order under section 148A(d) was Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur. In this way, the Assessing Officer has admitted the case of the assessee that for the relevant Assessment Year 2016-17, Pr. CIT-2 Jaipur was the competent authority for the purposes of sanction under section 151 of the Act. Copy of approval for passing order under section 148A(d), dated 22/25.7.2022, as per directions of Hon’ble Apex Court would reveal that said order was passed with the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income tax-2, Jaipur. This fact also finds mention in Order under section 148A(d) of the Act issued on 27.7.2022. Conclusion 30. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the notice under section 148 of the Act is invalid in the eye of law. 26 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal Result 31. As a result of the above findings, the reassessment order dated 17.5.2023 deserves to be set aside on this legal ground. ITA No.1253/JPR/2024-Appeal by the Department 32. As noticed above, the Assessing Officer concluded in view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs i.e. from 4.1 onwards that the above named company-YICL had weak financial statement; that the movement of the share price was not correlated and not supported by its financial statement, which revealed that the prices were rigged and manipulated by way pre arranged or artificial transaction to book bogus LTCS, and that the LTCG claimed by the assessee from the said scrip was only in order to evade taxation, on the basis of accommodation entries made by the above said company. 33. In para 4.17 of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) observed that scrutiny assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 11- 02-2018 wherein all the information relating to share capital was provided to the appellant and it was after due application of mind that the assessment order was passed. 27 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal Then, having regard to various decisions, including the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, Learned CIT(A) arrived at the conclusion that reopening and subsequent assessment was not valid. 34. Learned DR for the department has submitted that she stands by the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, and contended that the order passed by NFAC while dealing with only ground No.7 of the appeal there, deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, Learned AR for the assessee has submitted that he stands by the reasons recorded by CIT(A) while dealing with ground No.7 of the appeal raised there, and there being no merit in the appeal filed by the department, same deserves to be dismissed. 35. On going through the impugned order, it transpires that before passing of the previous assessment on 11-12-2018, the Department had issued 08 notices to the assessee, during the period from 12-09-2018 to 12-11-2018. Vide the first mentioned notice dated 12-09-2018, appellant was asked by the AO to submit details through E-filing. 28 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal In reply thereto, the assessee submitted requisite details pertaining to D-mat account for F.Y. 2015-16, details work done for F&O and Form No.10 DDB, computation of income of LTCG for the F.Y. 2015-16 and as to investment in shares/ F&O transactions, with supporting evidence. Vide another notice dated 17-02-2018, the AO directed the assessee to provide ledger and the books of the broker of the share transactions done in the assessment year 2016-17. In compliance thereto, the assessee provided ledger of Swastik Investment Ltd., depicting all the transactions of the shares shown by the broker as carried out by the assessee during the year under consideration. Again notice dated 26-09-2018 was issued to the assessee whereby the AO directed the assessee to submit copies of the bills relating to share transactions made in the year under consideration, and, in response thereto, the assessee submitted contract note cum bill of Swastik Investment Ltd. Said documents revealed name of the scrip of Yamini Investment Co. Ltd. (for short ‘’YICL’’), its sale prices, date, and net amount paid to the assessee. 29 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal Another notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued by the AO to the assessee on 30-03-2018 raising a specific query in respect of shares of YICL and to provide D-mat account from the date of purchase of shares of the said company upto 31-03-2016, in addition to purchase bills/contract notes of shares purchased of YICL. It was in response to the said notice that the assessee submitted reply dated 7-10-2018. Therein, the assessee also explained that Anax Com Trade Ltd of which assessee was allotted 4 lacs shares in the year 2012, was dematerialized in DP Anax Trade Assignments Ltd. on 11-02- 201; that sharers of said Anax Trade Company were split into Re.1/- instead of Rs.10/- shares and accordingly, assessee was allotted 40 lacs shares of Anax Com Trade Ltd., each share being of Re.1/-; that lateron, said Anax Com Trade Ltd. got merged with YICL and thereby assessee was allotted 32 lacs shares of said company i.e. YICL as against above said 40 lacs shares. Other details and documents required by the AO vide letter dated 10- 10-2018 were submitted by the assessee vide response dated 12-10-2018; vide response dated 11-11-2018 , in reply to the show cause notice dated 5-11-2018; vide reply dated 13-11-2018 in response to letter dated 12-11- 30 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal 2018, and that is how, the assessment order dated 11-12-2018 was passed. 36. As noticed above, such a survey operation was conducted in the case of Dutta and Tyagi Group on 16-05-2018 which revealed that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of the scrip of YICL listed in BSE having scrip code 511012. In other words, the AO had already called upon the assessee from time to time to furnish information, documents and details in respect of said transactions with YICL, before passing the previous assessment order dated 11-12-2018. It is well settled that where during assessment proceedings, the assessee company furnished entire material related to purchase and sale of shares and capital gains/ loss made therein and the AO having considered the details, took a conclusive view, reassessment proceedings which are initiated u/s 147 by way of reconsideration of the material already available at the time of original assessment proceedings, would amount to change of opinion. In this regard, while passing the impugned order, Learned CIT(A) relied on decisions in ACIT vs Infinity.com Financial Securities Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 212(SC) decided on 17-10-2022, 31 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal whereby SLP failed against decision by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 3497 of 2019 was dismissed. Therein, reference was also made to the decision in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd, 41 ITR 191 and Gemini Leather Stores vs ITO, [1975] 100 ITR, and CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC). 37. In view of the above discussion, we find that NFAC vide impugned order dated 14-08-2024 was fully justified in allowing Ground No.7 raised by the assessee in the appeal challenging assessment order dated 17-05- 2023 while concluding that reopening in subsequent reassessment u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Act was not valid. Conclusion 38. In view of the above findings and discussion, the appeal filed by the department deserves to be dismissed. Result 39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed. 32 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal The appeal-ITA No.1253/JPR/2024 filed by department is hereby dismissed. 40. Copy of common order be placed in the connected file of cross- objections No.1/JP/2025 for record. Files be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 12/03/2025. 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:- 12/03/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- ACIT, NCR Building, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Hans Raj Agarwal, Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "