INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR V. PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD, JAIPUR

ITA 900/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals: one by the Income Tax Department challenging the order of the Learned CIT(A) which set aside certain additions made to the assessee's income, and another by the assessee contesting the directions for re-assessment on other grounds. The primary issues revolved around the validity of the notice under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the appropriateness of the additions made under sections 10(38), 69, and 115BBE concerning alleged undisclosed investments and bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG). The Tribunal examined the procedural correctness of the notices issued and the substantive merits of the additions made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779942 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH OJHA; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: S. B. NATANI; LD
• Keywords: Set aside; Invalid notice; Reassessment proceedings; Cost of acquisition; Documents seized; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Earning of tax free income; Bogus
• Section: 148; 143(3); 142(1); 132; 153A; 68; 131; 69; 69C; 133A

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.722/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 Pradeep Kumar Dusad R-1, Behind Motor AIDS Petrol Pump, Jhotwara Road Shashtri Nagar, jaipur. cuke Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No. ABLPD4678H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.900/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pradeep Kumar Dusad R-1, Behind Motor AIDS Petrol Pump, Jhotwara Road Shashtri Nagar, jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No. ABLPD4678H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. S. B. Natani, Ld. C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 13/10/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 15/10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIALMEMBER . On 12.4.2025, Learned CIT(A) passed order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) and thereby allowed the appeal Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. filed by the assessee, named above, while setting aside the assessment order dated 28.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act. 2. Vide impugned assessment order dated 28.12.2018, the Assessing Officer had made three additions: (i) Relating to Bogus LTCG claimed by the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act, while holding that an amount of Rs. 44,68,330/-was to be treated as Income from Other sources, for the reasons recorded by him; (ii) of Rs. 89,367/-Relating to Commission paid for acquisition of an accommodation entry, as discussed in the order; (iii) of Rs. 1,45,78,885/-the sum of on-money paid in connection with transaction of purchase of land measuring 3 Bighas, out of total 10 Bighas of land), held to be undisclosed investment of the assessee, while resorting to provisions of section 69 of the Act and applying tax rate @ 30% as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The additions came to be made on the basis of incriminating material after a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act and/or survey action under section 133A of the Act carried out by the Department on the members of Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group, of which the assessee was also a member, on 28.7.2016. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. 3. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the additions for the reasons recorded therein, including reasons based on decision by a Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Jaipur Benches, while deciding appeal of the assessee in relation to the next assessment year i.e. 2017-18, wherein it was held that there was no case for considering the transaction of abovesaid land, in the hands of the assessee, and rather same was required to be considered in the hands of firm M/s Eminent Build Developers, in which the assessee was only a partner. Learned CIT(A) was of the view that in the given facts and circumstances, no satisfaction note under section 153C of the Act could have been drawn against the appellant, and as a result, notice under section 153C issued to the assessee-appellant could not be held to be a valid notice. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, Income Tax Department has come up in the second mentioned appeal. 4. Assessee is also in appeal (first mentioned), against the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) feeling aggrieved by directions issued to the Assessing Officer to take necessary action for issuance of notice under Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. section 148 of the Act, having regard to the provisions of section 150 of the Act, as regards the additions on the issues (other than the issue of purchase and sale of abovesaid land). Learned CIT(A) was of the view that in this regard the Assessing Officer could have conducted re-assessment proceedings by issuance of notice under section 147/148 of the Act. 5. Since both the appeals arise out of same order passed by Learned CIT(A), Learned DR for the department and Learned AR for the assessee have argued the two appeals together. As common issues arising out of same facts are involved, both appeals are being disposed of vide this common judgment. 6. Arguments heard. File perused. ITA No.900/JPR/2025 7. Learned DR for the department has submitted that Learned CIT(A) fell in error in recording finding that the incriminating seized material pertained to M/s Eminent Build Developers, a firm, and not to the assessee, a partner in the said firm, and to hold that proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer on the basis of satisfaction note were not proper. Reliance has been placed on the discussion made by the Assessing Officer Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. in the assessment order to contend that the assessment order being well reasoned, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, Learned AR for the assessee-respondent has stood by the findings recorded by Learned CIT(A) that the incriminating material did not pertain to the assessee, who was a partner in the said firm, and further that the Assessing Officer was not justified in initiating proceedings on the basis of satisfaction note. Discussion 9. As noticed above, case of the department is that search and seizure action under section 132 and survey action under section 133A of the Act was carried out on the members of Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group, of which the assessee is a member. Action was conducted on 28.7.2016. Then, notice under section 153C of the Act was issued on 20.9.2016. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.10.2018. 10. Further, as per case of the department, information received pertained to purchase of agricultural land situated in village Nindar, by the assessee on 28.7.2015, on a sale consideration of Rs. 1,54,21,115/-. All Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. relevant details of the agreements find mention in para 11, page 25, of the assessment order. 11. Admittedly, during post search proceedings, statement of Shri Chandra Mohan Badaya, one of the purchasers was recorded under section 131 of the Act. 12. The Assessing Officer was of the view that a sum of Rs. 4,84,96,285/-was paid to the seller in cash in the form of ‘ on money’ by Shri Chandra Mohan Badaya, on behalf of M/s Eminent Build Developments, M/s A.R. Properties & Colonizers and M/s Fortune Real Estate. From the statement of Shri Chandra Mohan Badaya, the Assessing Officer found that out of the total land, 3 Bighas of land was purchased by M/s Eminent Build Estate through its partner Shri Pradeep Dusad. Satisfaction Note-Issue of its validity. 13. For the initiation of proceedings, satisfaction note dated 18.09.2018 was recorded. As per said note recorded for the purpose of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, same was issued in relation to the assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 and 2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. As regards the assessment year 2017-18, it was specified in the satisfaction note that notice u/s 142(1) of the Act followed by notice u/s 143(2) was required to be issued for the purpose of assessment and reassessment of income of the present assessee-appellant, in accordance with law i.e. provision of Section 153A of the Act. 14. Said satisfaction note was based on incriminating material said to have been found seized and inventoried (as Annexure-A, Exhibit-28, page 13 to 17 and page 40 to 44). Said incriminating material was in the form of copies of agreement executed between the seller and purchaser of 10 Bhigas of land referred to above. 15. While dealing with the contention raised on behalf of the assessee, Learned CIT(A) observed at page 54 of the impugned order that as per satisfaction note, the Assessing Officer had not asked for any action in the hands of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Dusad or the partnership firm M/s Aminent Build Developer, relating to the assessment year 2016-17. 16. Admittedly, agricultural land was purchased on 28.07.2015 and then sold on 31.05.2016. In this way, transaction of purchase of land pertained to the assessment year 2016-17, i.e. year under consideration, whereas the transaction of sale pertained to assessment year 2017-18 . Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. 17. In view of the contents of satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C of the Act, it is found that the same was recorded on being satisfied from the documents seized that the incriminating material related to Pradeep Kumar Dusad, the assessee- appellant and said documents had bearing on the determination of total income of the assessee. In the last paragraph of the said satisfaction note, there is specific mention of the assessment year 2016-17. Therefore, we do not approve the observation recorded by Learned CIT(A) in the impugned order that the satisfaction note did not disclose any content and any material for initiation of action u/s 153C of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17 or that the Assessing Officer was not justified in issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act. 18. Case of the assessee is that agricultural land measuring 2.99 Hectare was purchased on 28.07.2015, from Smt. Prabhati Devi, for a sum of Rs. 1,54,21,115/-, in the capacity of a partner of M/s Eminent Build Developer, other partners being Shri Badaya and Shri Ashok Gihiya. Copy of partnership deed dated 18.06.2015 was made available to Learned CIT(A) (page 1 to 7 of the paper book submitted there). Copy of the agreement dated 28.07.2015 was found and seized from the Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. residential premises of Shri Chandra Prakash Agarwal. This document was exhibited as Exhibit-28, as available from page 13 to 17 of Annexure-A. 19. Learned CIT(A) observed at page 53 of the impugned order that as per said agreement, the firm namely M/s Eninent Build Developers had paid entire amount of Rs. 1,54,21,115/- through RTGS, drawn on bank account maintained with ICICI bank, and further that said payments were made on different dates. 20. Before Learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the entire payment of Rs. 1,54,21,115/-, so made was reflected in the books of accounts of the above said firm. Copy of relevant account in the books of account of the said firm was made available at page 8 of the paper book submitted there, i.e. before Learned CIT(A). At page 9 of the said paper book, was available copy of the bank account reflecting various payments so made. 21. Learned CIT(A) recorded that on perusal of the agreement he found that the same was executed by the assessee as a representative of the said firm, being a partner thereof. Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. In his view, there was nothing in the purchase agreement to suggest that any ‘on own money” was paid in connection with purchase of said agricultural land. Accordingly, Learned CIT(A) was of the opinion that the said agreement could not be termed as the incriminating material. He was also of the view that said agreement did not belong to the assessee. While recording that the agreement said to have been seized had no bearing on the determination of income of the assessee or of the firm, he observed that, no case for issuance of notice u/s 153C of the Act to the assessee was made out, when the only other material available with the department was in the form of statement of Shri Chandra Mohan Badaya made available at page 62 to 80 of the paper book submitted before Learned CIT(A). 22. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in the contention raised by Ld. DR for the department-appellant that validity of notice u/s 153C of the Act could not be challenged, when the incriminating material i.e. the agreements for purchase of the said land seized on search, required enquiry for verification of the transaction including payment, and their perusal, prima facie, revealed its purchase on 28.07.2015. Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. 23. On merits, while dealing with said addition, Learned CIT(A) took into consideration decision of the Coordinate Bench, ITAT, Jaipur Benches, in respect of the assessment proceedings, relating to the assessment year 2017-18, which were initiated as regards transaction of sale of the above said land purchased in the financial year 2015-16. 24. While passing order, relating to the said assessment year 2017-18, the Coordinate Bench, admittedly, took into consideration copy of sale deed dated 16.05.2016, copy of bank account relating to M/s Eminent Build Developer, copy of balance sheet of the said firm, and copy of audited balance sheet of the said firm as on 31.03.2016. On the basis of said material, the Co-ordinate Bench recorded following observations in the order passed while deciding appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18:- “The Bench considered the submissions of the assessee and the Id. DR. It is noticed from the records that while proceeding before the Id. CIT(A) as well as now the assessee has successfully made out a case that the land in question was purchased and sold by the firm M/s Eminent Build Developers, a separate entity having three partners including assessee Shri Pradeep Kuamr Dusad. The entire amount of purchases of Rs. 1,54,21,115/- was paid by firm M/s Eminent Build Developers from bank account of the firm with ICICI Bank. Copy of the bank account has been placed on record (Paper book page No. 13). Further the purchase of land on 28.07.2015 is duly reflected in the Balance Sheet of the firm M/s Eminent Build Developers as on 31.03.2016. Copy of Audited Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2016 of firm M/s Eminent Build Developers is available on record (paper book page No. 15). The Sale deed is registered on 31.05.2016 in the Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. name of the firm M/s Eminent Build developers wherein the assessee through partner Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad who has acted in representative capacity. The entire amount of Sales Consideration of Rs. 1,62,00,000/- was received by firm M/s Eminent Build Developers in the bank account with ICICI Bank. The copy of the bank account has been placed on record (Paper book page No. 14). Based on that set of facts and circumstances, both the transactions of purchase and sale are in the name of firm M/s Eminent Build Developers. The firm has also disclosed capital gain in the return of income filed for AY 2017-2018 on 31.10.2017 which stands accepted by the department. Copy of the computation of total income is available on record, (paper book page No 17 to 36). The purchase of Agricultural land disclosed in the return for the AY 2016-2017 also stands accepted by the department. Hence absolutely there is no case for considering the transaction of land in the hands of the assessee Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad, the same was required to be considered in the hands of the firm M/s Eminent Build Developers. Further the entire proceedings/additions have been initiated made on the basis of statements only and no documentary evidence in support of the statements is placed on record. The assessee vehemently argued that it is settled position of law that no addition can be made on the basis of statements only which are not supported by any documentary evidence. Even herein this case the Id. CIT(A) has appreciated this fact that the purchase and sale of property were accounted for in the firm and that is why he also set off the alleged on money while considering the addition. The assessee is in appeal for the sustained addition and revenue is appeal for the set off of alleged on money and considering it as cost of acquisition. Thus, appreciating the overall aspect of the matter we are of the considered view that once the Id. CIT(A) hold a view that the property in question is in the name of the firm and he also allowed the set off of purchase and sale amount sustaining the addition of the alleged on money merely based on the statement same cannot be considered as unexplained income of the assessee. Because our jurisdictional High Court has held in the case of POT Vs. M/s. Esspol International P. Ltd. DB ITA no. 25/2024 dated 03/09/2024 that merely based on the statement no addition can be made. The relevant finding of binding judicial precedent is reproduced herein below: below: Based on these observations, Ground no. 3 to 9 are allow The above finding is given based on the specific fact that the property in dispute is of firm and not of the assessee and Id. CIT(A) has already considered the set off of that property and allowed the benefit to the assessee and therefore, based on that specific fact the assessee gets relief. Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. 14.1 We note that the grievance of the revenue that the Id. CIT(A) should not have indulged into the finding of giving effect to the fact that whether the gross on money is to be taxed or the net was not the dispute because the same is related in the case of the firm. The bench noted that we have already while dealing with the appeal of the assessee given the finding that the issue relates to the purchase and sale of land by the firm and the assessee being partner has acted as authorized person and therefore, before us also this issue is becomes premature as we do not have the appeal of the said firm before us and therefore, the issue raised by the revenue is academic at this stage while dealing with the case of the assessee\" 25. As noticed above, findings came to be recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench even about transaction of purchase of the said land, which came to be sold in the next financial year. Nothing has been brought to our notice to suggest that those findings were challenged by the department before the Hon’ble High Court. As a result, said findings have attained finality. Having become final, we do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the department while assailing the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) based on the decision by the Co-ordinate Bench. Since there was no material to suggest that it is the assessee who had invested in purchase of the agricultural land or then invested the said land in the stock of the firm. Therefore, the assessee could not be held liable for tax payment, when source of said investment through its partner actually made by the firm was not to be explained by the assessee in his individual capacity. Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. 26. As a result, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) setting aside this addition relating to investment made by the firm, in purchase of the agriculture land. Addition on Bogus LTCG claim & other additions 27. As noticed above, another addition of Rs. 44,68,330/- was made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing LTCG claimed by the assessee u/s 10(38) of the Act. Learned CIT(A) took into consideration all the facts and circumstances and observed that the additions on the ground of bogus LTCG claimed could have been made by way of reassessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 147/148 of the Act. Learned CIT(A) in view of his observations and invalidity of notice u/s 153C of the Act, held that discussion on said addition stood rendered as academic. Learned CIT(A) disposed of grounds of appeal No. 1 and 1.2 accordingly. 28. However, at the same time, Learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee, in view of the Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. provisions of section 150 of the Act, as well as the instructions issued by CBDT, vide instruction No. 1 of 2023, dated 23.08.2023. 29. As is available from the assessment order, during search and as per information made public by SEBI, on an investigation conducted in the case of M/s Yamini Investment Company Ltd., it was revealed that shares of the said company had been rigged in an synchronized way to provide accommodation entries of bogus long term capital gain to various beneficiaries, including the assessee. 30. The assessee was found to have claimed exempt income on account of LTCG, from the transactions while dealing in the scrip of the above said company. As per details, said scrip was purchased on 20.01.2012 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and sold on 09.04.2015 for Rs. 45,68,330/-, resulting into LTCG of Rs. 44,68,330/-. 31. Assessee was called upon to furnish all requisite details regarding purchase of shares of the said company by the assessee, with evidence in respect thereof. 32. As observed in the assessment order, it was found that the assessee had initially purchased 10,000/- shares of M/s Fedelo Power and Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. Infrastructure Limited , on 14.12.2011 by investing Rs. 1,00,000/-, but later on the assessee received bonus share of Rs. 90,000/- on 14.01.2013. It was also revealed that the said company got merged with M/s Yamini Investment company Limited by way of merger order passed by Hon’ble High Court and in this way, the assessee received 80,000/- shares of M/s Yamini Investment Company Ltd., of the value of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 33. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had bought shares of M/s Fedelo Power and Infrastructure Limited @ 10 per share; that cost per share got reduced to Rs. 1/- after issuance of bonus share of Rs. 90,000/-. It was found that the price of the scrip kept on rising throughout the period the shares were held by the assessee and its prices reached a very high rise, after a short period of time, and reached level of Rs. 61.00 after merger. 34. The Assessing Officer thoroughly examined the said scrip and ultimately issued show cause notice dated 12.12.2018 seeking explanation of the assessee, specifying that in case of failure to furnish any explanation, he shall treat the whole as an attempt to introduce undisclosed Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. income and LTCG; and also proposed commission expenses @ 2%, while resorting to provisions of section 68 and 69C of the Act. 35. To the show cause notice dated 12.12.2018, the assessee submitted his response. 36. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer held that amount of Rs. 44,68,339/- was introduced/credited by the assessee, out of the purported share sale receipt during financial year 2015-16, in his capital account as his income, and that said income was taxable @ 30% as provided u/s 115BBE of the Act. As noticed above, Learned CIT(A) was of the view that notice u/s 153C of the Act was an invalid notice and the Assessing Officer was required to issue notice u/s 147/148 of the Act. 37. Ld. DR for the department has submitted that as noticed above, the Assessing Officer had initiated proceedings u/s 153 of the Act against the assessee-appellant, on the basis of incriminating material pertaining to purchase of agricultural land. 38. Learned DR has also submitted that in the case of M/s Yamini Investment Company Limited , investigation was conducted, which Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. revealed that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of M/s Yamini Investment Company Limited. 39. As notice above, satisfaction note dated 18.09.2012 related to the assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17, and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was required to be issued followed by notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, for the assessment year 2017-18, for the purpose of assessment and reassessment as his income, in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. 40. A perusal of satisfaction note dated 18.09.2018 would reveal that there is no mention in it about any information or recovery of incriminating material relating to shares of M/s Yamini Investment company Ltd or contents of documents seized if any. 41. There is nothing in the assessment order to suggest as to on which date any search was conducted in the case of M/s Yamini Investment company Ltd. and nature of the material seized. Printed from counselvise.com 19 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. 42. The fact remains that in the satisfaction note dated 18.09.2018, no satisfaction regarding bogus LTCG, on sale of said shares, was recorded. Nowhere in the said satisfaction note, the Assessing Officer observed about perusal of books of account or documents seized on said search or to have requisitioned any books of account or documents or that any such material had bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee. 43. In the given situation, it can safely be said that proceedings were initiated as regards the above said LTCG claimed by the assessee, without making reference of any incriminating material in the form of books of account or documents seized or requisitioned. 44. Having regard to all this, Learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made while rejecting claim of the assessee u/s 10(38) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 20 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. ITA No. 722/JPR/2025 45. In view of the above discussion, and the case being a search case, no incriminating material having been mentioned in any satisfaction note, we find merit in the contention raised by Ld. AR for the assessee-appellant in ITA No. 722/JPR/2025, that Learned CIT(A) fell in error in making observations that the Assessing Officer could have made additions as regards the claim of LTCG by issuing notice u/s 147/148 of the Act, having regard to the provisions of section 150 of the Act. Accordingly, said direction issued by Learned CIT(A) deserves to be set aside. As a result, while holding that if being a case of search Learned CIT(A) could not direct the Assessing Officer to take any action for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, as regards LTCG claim, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the Printed from counselvise.com 21 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), as regards said addition is partly modified,. 46. No other argument has been advanced in either of the two appeals. Result 47. As a result, ITA No. 900/JPR/2025 by the department is hereby partly allowed, in the manner indicated above. ITA No. 722/JPR/2025 is also partly allowed to the extent indicated above. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Copy of the order be also placed in the file of the connected appeal. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/10/2025. 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:- 15/10/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT Printed from counselvise.com 22 ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025 Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur. 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 722 & 900/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "