JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR V. MANOJ BAHL, JAIPUR

ITA 832/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-4, Jaipur against Manoj Bahl Vision Gems Pvt. Ltd., challenging the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) which set aside the assessment order for the year 2012-13. The assessment order was initially challenged by the assessee, and the CIT(A) allowed the appeal based on a decision by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which found the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be not sustainable. The department's appeal was dismissed due to the non-maintainability as the department had issued a notice under section 153C of the Act after the CIT(A)'s order, indicating acceptance of the order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714205 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RINES H
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHARTH RANKA; SAURAV HARSH.
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Question of law; Assessment record
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 832/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-4, Jaipur. Cuke Vs. Manoj Bahl Vision Gems Pvt. Ltd., Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACGPB4994A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. & Sh. Saurav Harsh. Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 06/08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member Present appeal has been filed by the department, challenging order dated 15.01.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), relating to the assessment year 2012-13, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee, challenging assessment order dated 25.11.2019, was allowed and the assessment order was set aside , while observing that notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 832/JPR/2025 Manoj Bahl, Jaipur. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), was not sustainable legally in view of decision by the Hon’ble High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2024) 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019. With the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay came to be filed. The ground for condonation of delay is that the copy of the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) was received at the office of Learned PCIT, on 15.01.2025; that CSR with the recommendation of appeal was sent to the office of Learned PCIT, on 21.03.2025, for which authorization was received on 25.03.2025, but due to non traceability of old assessment record, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period. While relying on the above averments in the application, Ld. DR for the appellant has submitted that delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned. 2. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that a notice u/s 153C of the Act, came to be issued to the assessee by the department on 04.02.2025, and as such, it cannot be said that any old Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 832/JPR/2025 Manoj Bahl, Jaipur. assessment record was not available with the department for preparing of appeal. 3. As noticed above, case of the department itself is that CSR along with recommendation of appeal was sent to the office of Learned PCIT on 21.03.2025, and said authorization was received on 24.03.2025. Notice issued u/s 153C of the Act, on 04.02.2025, must have been issued on the basis of some record. In the situation, the department should have specified in the application as to which assessment record was not traceability. But, in the application, there is no specification as to which record was not available. 4. Be that as it may, present appeal came to the filed on 20.05.2025. As noticed above, the authorization was received from the office of Learned PCIT , on 24.03.2025. Thereupon, the department must have taken time for preparation of the appeal. In the given situation, we deem it a fit case to admit the appeal. We order accordingly. On the point of maintainability of the appeal-in the face of notice under section 153 of the Act Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 832/JPR/2025 Manoj Bahl, Jaipur. 5. Ld. DR for the department has not disputed issuance of notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153CA of the Act by the department to the assessee on 04.02.2025. Said notice was issued on 04.02.2025. However, present appeal came to be presented thereafter i.e. on 20.05.2025. 6. In the course of arguments, Ld. DR for the department has submitted that the notice u/s 153C of the Act came to be issued to the assessee in compliance with the decision by the Hon’ble High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal case (supra), and that present appeal came to be filed as this is a case where notice u/s 148 of the Act was correctly and legally issued on the basis of “information received”, and provisions of section 153C were not applicable. 7. Learned AR for the assessee has referred to copy of order dated 17.7.2025 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(CIVIL) Diary No.24444/2025, titled as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 4, Jaipur v. Pramod Jain, one of the petitions decided by Hon’ble High Court while delivering decision in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal’s case and other bunch petitions, and submitted that the SLP filed by the department against said decision stands dismissed while observing that Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 832/JPR/2025 Manoj Bahl, Jaipur. there was no good reason to interfere with the common impugned order passed by High Court. Learned DR for the department has also gone through copy of said order in open court. It is true that while deciding the abovesaid SLP, Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly observed in para 4 of the order that the question of law is kept open. In other words, the question of law stated to be involved has been kept open, to be decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in some other matter. But, in the given situation, when notice u/s 153C of the Act, came to be issued by the department on 04.02.2025 i.e. after passing of the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 passed by Learned CIT(A), department can safely be said to have accepted the impugned order, passed by Learned CIT(A). The impugned order has been passed by applying the decision by our Hon’ble High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal case, and recording the finding that in the given facts and circumstances, notice under section 148 of the Act was legally not sustainable. We are of the considered opinion after having issued notice u/s 153C of the Act, on the facts and material already within the know of the department, in terms of the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A), which is based on decision by Hon’ble High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal’s Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 832/JPR/2025 Manoj Bahl, Jaipur. case, present appeal which came to be presented on 20.05.2025 i.e. subsequent to the issuance of the notice under section 153 C is not maintainable. Result In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed, being not maintainable. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06/08/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- JCIT(OSD), Central Circle-4, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Manoj Bahl, Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 832/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "