Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Ajay Jalan (ITAT Kolkata)
The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relating to Assessment Year 2019-20, wherein the reassessment initiated under Sections 147 and 148 and the addition made under Section 69A were set aside. The original return had been filed under Section 139(1) and processed under Section 143(1). Following a search under Section 132 in the case of the Jalan Group, the assessee’s case was assessed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A on 28.03.2022. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 dated 06.04.2023 was issued alleging that the assessee had advanced cash loans through a finance broker, leading to additions towards alleged cash loans, interest and commission.
The Commissioner (Appeals) found that during the earlier assessment under Section 153A/143(3), the Assessing Officer already possessed the same information relating to the alleged cash loans. While additions had been made for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 on the basis of that material, no addition was made for Assessment Year 2019-20. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that reopening the completed assessment on the very same material amounted to a change of opinion based on stale information and declared the notice issued under Section 148 to be bad in law.
The Commissioner (Appeals) further held that the documents relied upon had been seized during a search conducted at the premises of a third party, namely the Kasera Group. Where seized material belongs or relates to another person, the appropriate statutory provision is Section 153C, which overrides the general reassessment provisions under Section 147. Accordingly, initiation of proceedings under Sections 147/148 instead of Section 153C was held to be without jurisdiction and unsustainable.
On merits, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the additions under Section 69A were based on statements recorded from third parties and loose sheets seized from the Kasera Group. The assessee consistently denied knowing the alleged finance broker, filed an affidavit to that effect, and sought copies of the statements and an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon. Those requests were not granted. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted that no incriminating material was found during the search conducted in the assessee’s own case, the seized loose papers did not bear the assessee’s signature or handwriting, and no corroborative evidence established that the alleged transactions belonged to the assessee. It was also found that the identity of the person named in the seized documents as “Ajay Jalan” had not been conclusively established as that of the assessee. The additions were therefore held to be based on assumptions and unsupported by independent evidence, leading to deletion of the addition of Rs. 3.50 crore under Section 69A.
Before the Tribunal, the Revenue argued that the reassessment was based on fresh and tangible information received through the Risk Management Strategy framework and had been validly approved under Section 151. It also challenged the finding that proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C and contested the deletion of the addition. The assessee supported the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), contending that the material relied upon had already been available during the earlier search assessment under Section 153A/143(3) and that the reopening merely reflected a change of opinion.
The Tribunal held that the search at the Kasera Group had taken place before completion of the assessment under Section 153A/143(3) and the Assessing Officer was already in possession of the alleged incriminating material when the earlier assessment was completed. Consequently, reopening the assessment under Section 148 on the same material amounted to a change of opinion. The Tribunal also agreed that where material is seized from a third party, proceedings, if any, should be initiated under Section 153C. It further noted that the assessee had denied any connection with the alleged finance broker and that no corroborative evidence linked the assessee with the alleged cash loan transactions. Finding no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld both the legal and merits findings in favour of the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.08.2025 of the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal passed under Section 147 of the Assessment Year 2019-20 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2. Brief Facts of the case is that assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 electronically u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.08.2019, declaring total income of Rs. 70,57,430/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 18.12.2019, accepting the returned Income. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Jalan Group of Companies and other associated entities on 07.12.2020. Consequent upon search & seizure operation, Search proceeding for the AY 2019-20 was initiated by issuing notice u/s 153A of the Act and subsequently search assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/153A of the Act on 28.03.2022. The case was reopened vide notice u/s 148 dated 06.04.2023. The assessee has been alleged of giving cash loan through alleged finance broker Kesara and accordingly an amount of Rs.3,81,50,000/- on account of alleged cash loan and consequently alleged interest and commission has been added.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been allowed by observing thus:-
5.5.4 I have duly perused the facts of the case and submission of the appellant in relation to the decision of the AO in reopening the case u/s. 147 of the Act as being ‘change in opinion’. As far as facts are concerned, it is very much clear from the assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 153A/143(3) for A.Y. 2016-17 on 24.03.2022, for A.Y. 201718 on 24.03.2022 and for A.Y. 2019-20 on 28.03.2022 that all these three assessment proceedings were simultaneously conducted by the AO in consequence to search on 07.12.2020. It is also a fact on record, that the AO has made addition of Rs. 7,65,00,000/- in A.Y. 2016-17 and 5,95,00,000/- in A.Y. 2017-18 as unexplained cash loan u/s 69A given by the assessee through the finance brokers Kasera. The said addition has been duly discussed in the assessment order in detail and has been made on the basis of the very same information the AO has utilized in the assessment of instant case. Further, it is also a fact that no addition of any unexplained cash loan u/s. 69A was made in the assessment order passed for A.Y. 2019-20, by the AO u/s. 153A/143(3) on 28.03.2022. The facts mentioned above clearly shows that while passing the assessment order u/s. 153A/143(3) on 28.03.2022, the AO was in the possession of the relevant information, relating to the alleged unaccounted cash loan pertaining to the F.Y. 2018-19 relevant for A.Y. 2019-20, but he decided not to make any adation of use this information in the assessment for A.Y. 2019-20 u/s. 1530/143(3) on 28.03.2022. Whereas, the additions were made on the basis of same information in the cases of A.Y. 2016-17 and 2017-18 passed us. 1534/143(3) on 24.03.2022.
5.5.5 So, the AO has already applied his mind, and decided not to make any addition in A.Y. 2019-20 and to make addition on the basis of the same information in the case for A.Y. 2016-17 and 2017-18. Then, further of reopening of the case u/s. 148 of the Act in a just concluded assessment u/s 1534/143(3) on 28.03.2022 on the basis of very same information, which was available with the AD at the time of earlier assessment will clearly violate the spirit of the law and amounts to use of state information and ‘change of opinion of the AO. The Judgement cited by the appellant in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvenater of India Ltd. (Supra) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Supra) squarely favours the case of the assessee. Furthermore, as far as utilization of stale information is concerned, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held in the case of Rasalika Trading and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and ANR w.p.(c) 1608/2013 dated 14.02.2014 that an attempt by the AO to reopen the proceedings u/s. 147/148 on the basis of stale information which was available at the time of original assessment amounts to change of opinion’ Which is not permissible under the law.
5.5.6Therefore, In view of the facts and discussion made above, I find merit in the submissions of the appellant in respect of the decision of the AO in reopening the case of the appellant uls. 147/148 on a stale information. The action of the AO clearly comes under the purview ‘change in opinion I am also convinced by the fact that the cases cited by the appellant of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kelvenator of India Ltd.(supra) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra) squarely cover the fact of the case of the appellant. Therefore, I held the notice issued by the AO wis. 148 of the Act on 06.04 2023 as bad in law.
5.6 Ground No. 7:
5.6.1 The appellant vide Ground No. 7 of his appeal has challenged the validity of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 06.04.2023. The appellant has stated in its submission that the proceeding u/s 148/147 has been initiated by the AO on the basis of alleged incriminating documents found and seized in search u/s 132(1) of the Act on the premises of finance broker Kesaraon 30.11.2018. The appellant states that as per the law prescribed in the Income-tax Act, in cases of search at the premises of a person if certain incriminating documents relating or belonging to an assessee is found and seized, then the ideal section to open the case of assessee is section 153C of the Act. Further, since the search in the cases of Kesarawere conducted on 30.11.2018, therefore the AO should have initiated proceedings u/s 1530 of the Act for making the assessment in his case. The appellant has cited the following judgement in support of his argument-
1. Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs ACIT (Rajasthan High Court) Appeal Number: D.B. Civil Wit Petition No. 18363/2019.
2. Aristocrat Residences LLP.Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer Ward 34 (1), Kolkata on 1 April, 2025 ITA No. 1118/KOL/2024
5.6.2 I find merit in the submission of the appellant. The provision of sections 153A and 153C starts with the non-obstante clause, which has an overriding effect to the regular provision of assessment or reassessment u/s 143(3) or 147. So, the specific provision of section 1530 would prevail over the provision of section 147 in case of search on 3rd party. Here in the instant case, the material seized from the premises of Kaseras allegedly relates to or pertains to the assessee. Therefore, the proceeding had to be initiated u/s 153C and not u/s 148/147. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (Supra) and the jurisdiction ITAT Bench in Kolkata in the case of Aristocrat Residences LLP (Supra) have held the similar view in the cited cases. In view of the above fact of the case and relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Court, I held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 06.04.2023 without jurisdiction and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5.7 Ground No. 2 to 4 and 8 to 15:
5.7.1The appellant vide these grounds of appeal has challenged the merit of the addition made by the AO. The appellant in his submission has stated that the AO has made the impugned additions of cash loan amounting to Rs.3,50,00,000/- only on the basis of his presumption and surmises. The appellant has stated that the AO has made the additions relying on the statement of one Shri Praveen Kumar Kasera, one of the key persons of finance broker recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 02.12.2018, where he has duly explained the modus of operendii adopted by Kasera. Further, the AO has also relied on alleged Rukkas seized from the premises of the Kaseras.
5.7.2 However, the appellant has stated in his submission that in the assessment proceeding It was submitted before the AO that he did not know any person by the name of Shri Praveen Kumar Kasera. An affidavit to this effect was also submitted before the AO in the assessment Further, the assessee also asked the AO to provide an opportunity to cross examine the party Shri Praveen Kumar Kasera. But the same was not provided by the AO. The assessee had further asked for cross examination of the 3rd parties to whom the assessee has alleged to have given such cash loan. The list of such parties is as follows:
BMW/ Ram Gopal Bansal/BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Century (Jai)
RG Bansal/SUNIL BANSAL/UTKARSH INDIA LIMITED
VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL/PS SRIJAN REALTY LLP/JANKI TEXTILE AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED
Salasar (GG Dalmia a/c)/ PRADEEP KUMAR SARAOGI/SHREE SALASAR PROPERTIES &
FINANCE PVT. LTD.
Anand Jube/ Anand Kumar Agarwal/ANAND JUTE PRIVATE LIMITEDThe assessee was not provided with such opportunity.
57.3 In course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that no incriminating materials were found in the course of the search carried out in his case and he had no connection with the entries written on the loose sheets of paper found and seized in the course of the search carried out in the case of ‘Kasera Group’. It was further stated that those documents did not bear the signature of assessee or his family members. The entries therein were not in the handwriting of the assessee. The said sheets of paper were never found in the possession or control of the assessee and there was no corroborative evidence that the assessee had unaccounted transactions through Kaseras. Hence, they were dumb documents and could not be relied upon to take a view averse to the assessee.
5.7.4 Relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBI Vs V. C. Shukla, 1998 (3) SCC 410/1998 taxmann.com 2155 and Common Cause Vs UOI (2017) 394 ITR 220, the assessee submitted that the entries in loose sheets of paper found from the premises of the third parties are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence. It was further submitted that the entries in the loose sheets of paper seized from the premises of the Kaseras were not sufficient to make any addition in his hand without having any corroborative evidence. The assessee requested that he should be provided the copy of the materials sought to be relied upon and allowed to cross examine the parties whose statements were sought to be relied upon. However, without providing copies of the materials sought to be relied upon and without affording opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the persons concerned, the AO made assessment under section 147 vide order dated 15.03.2025 determining total income of Rs.4,52,07,430/- inter alia making addition of a sum of Rs.3,50,00,000/- holding the same to be the undisclosed Income of the assessee for the year within the meaning of section 69A of the Act. TAX DEPA
5.7.5 It is a fact that no incriminating materials were found in the course of the search carried out in the case of the assessee on 07.12.2020 and subsequent dates. In the assessment order also, the AO didn’t refer to any incriminating materials found/seized in the course of the search in respect of the addition of Rs.3,50,00,000/- made in the order.
5.7.6 The documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer to take a view averse to the assessee were found and seized from the premises of the ‘Kasera Group’ in the course of search carried out in their case on 30.11.2018and as such, they were relevant only for the cases of the said group’s search assessments. As per section 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, any documents, books of account, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed that such documents, books of account, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person and the contents of such documents and books of account are true. Presumption under section 132(4A) is only against the person in whose possession the search material is found and not against any other person.
5.7.7 However, if the searched person claims that the documents, books of account etc. found in the course of the search don’t belong to him and the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the documents, books of account etc. don’t belong or pertain to the searched person and indeed belong to a third party, he, after recording satisfaction to that effect in terms of section 153C of the Act, should transfer the seized materials to the Assessing Officer of the third party. In the instant case, since in documents were found & seized from the possession & control of ‘Kasera Group’, the same couldn’t be presumed to be belonging to the assessee, If the seized documents referred to in the assessment order are considered to be belonging to the assessee, then the only legal recourse available to the department is to proceed against the assessee in terms of section 153C of the Act.
5.7.8 it is undisputed fact that the AO made addition in the assessment made under section 147 of the Act based on the documents found/seized in the course of the search carried out in the case of ‘Kasera Group’ (third party) on 30.11.2018. The entries written on the loose sheets of paper found and seized in the course of the search carried out in the case of Kasera Group’ were not in the handwriting of the assessee, they did not bear the signature of assessee or his family members. The said sheets of paper were never found in the possession or control of the assessee and no corroborative evidence was brought on record to prove that the assessee had unaccounted transactions through Kaseras. Hence, they are dumb documents and could not be relied upon to take a view averse to the assessee. The Supreme Court in Common 8 Cause Vs UOI (2017) 394 ITR 220, held that the entries in loose sheets of paper found from the premises of the third parties are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence to fix a liability upon a person.
5.7.9 However, neither the copy of their statements nor the opportunity to cross examine them were provided to the assessee. Under the circumstances, there is no evidentiary value of such statements as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)/ 2016 (15) SCC 785 (SC).
5.7.10 The presumption under section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not apply in the instant case because the incriminating materials were not seized from the possession of the assessee. No corroborative evidence was found in support of the assertion that the assessee had unaccounted cash loan transactions through Kaseras. Further, the statements of Shri Praveen Kumar Kasera was recorded behind the back of the assessee and the assessee was not allowed opportunity to cross-examine Kaseras. Therefore, their statements [3:16 pm, 15/4/2026] diwakarchandra2017: cannot be used as evidence against the assessee.
5.7.11 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Radico Khaitan (2017) 83 taxmann.com 375 (Delhi) held that Section 132 no doubt mandates a presumption in respect of search and seizure operations, yet textually the presumption relates to material documents and books of account seized from the assessee’s premises and not from materials seized and statement recorded of third parties. Thus, the presumption given in sec. 132(4A) could be applied only to the materials found with the searched person. If any material is found from some other person, the above said presumption could not be extended to the assessee.
5.7.12 In Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ansal Properties & Industries [2018] 98 taxmann.com 398 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court reiterated that since the diary in question was not recovered from the premises of the assessee, no presumption under section 132(4A) could be drawn against the assessee. In the block assessment, the burden is upon the AD to prove that the assessee had any undisclosed income and no addition could be made on the basis of assumption and presumptions.
5.7.13 The appellant has mentioned further more facts which are of immense value in deciding the merit of the case. The appellant states that the AO has acted on incompletes information in this case. The AO did not share any specific name of the entity, nor the PAN/address of the parties. Some of the entries mentioned in the diary, does not even bear the year of transaction. The appellant further stated that from perusal of all the pages of the diary, shared with the assessee at the time of issue of show-cause notice, it is found that the same only bears the name of one ‘Ajay Jalan’. However, from the same, nowhere it can be proved that the person is assessee or some other Ajay Jalan. There is no address, PAN, father name etc mentioned in the said diary to conclude decisively that the Ajay Jalan as per the allegation is the assessee only. Not only that the appellant has alleged that the AO has been in the habit of acting whimsically and in prejudice manner against the assessee on other occasions also. In this regard, he has stated an instance in which he alleged that the case for A.Y 2019-20 and A.Y 2022-23 was also reopened on similar whimsically grounds and later it was proved by the assessee that the alleged person was some other Ajay Jalan and not the assessee. The case was subsequently dropped after verification.
5.7.14 Furthermore, as regards to the findings of Rukkas as alleged by the AO is concerned the appellant has stated that no such Rukkas have been produced during the course of assessment proceedings which bears the signature of either the assessee or any of the alleged borrowers. The appellant states that without presence of such Rukkas, no negative inference should be drawn against the assessee.
5.7.15 As regards to the statement of Praveen Kumar Kasera/Uma Shankar Kasera/Anil Kumar Kasera, the appellant has stated in its submission as under:
Statement of Praveen Kumar Kaseral Uma Shankar Kasera/ Anil Kumar Kasera
The statement has been recorded in a general fashion, wherein only a modus operandi has been mentioned
The statement may have been recorded with coercion and undue influence.
Hon’ble CBDT vide Instruction No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv) dated 10.03.2003 had held that, no addition should be made on the basis of confessions but on the basis of evidences/material gathered during the course of search or thereafter. In the instant case, a third persoris statement/confession cannot be a basis of addition.
CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, Delhi High Court: Held: The undisclosed income of an Assessee has to be computed on the basis of evidence and material found during search and not merely upon statements recorded. The assessee is unaware whether the statement has been retracted or not.
The statement nowhere speaks of any allegation upon the assessee directly or indirectly.
The assessee requested for cross examination of the alleged parties whose statements have been relied upon which were recorded without the presence of the assessee. However, the same was not provided.
Some Screenshots of a pages of some diary has been attached. The same is not properly legible. However, apparently the same does not bear the name of the assessee. Some of the pages are scribbled and struck-off, which raises questions on the credibility of such papers.
The statements says that one Shri Rajesh Kasera will give detailed information. However, his statement had not been shared
The statements speak of various incriminating documents being seized. The entire documents were not shared with the assessee; thus, the statements cannot be read in totality.
No independent enquiry had been made 5.7.16 The appellant has conclusively submitted that the AO had not adduced any tangible evidence on record, which goes to prove that the assessee had advanced loan in cash. Further the source of generation of such cash has also not been established. The AO during the assessment proceedings did not produce any evidence on record, which goes to prove the movement of cash and thus the cash trail was not established. Thus, the addition is based on surmises, personal whims, conjectures and preconceived mind set.
5.7.17 Decision: I have duly considered the facts of the case and the submission of the appellant. I find merit in the submission of the appellant that the documents seized from the premises of the Kaseras does not have any evidentiary value as no corroborative material was brought on record by the revenue. Further, the assessee was not provided an opportunity to cross examine Shri Praveen Kumar Kasera whose statement has been used for making addition in this case. Furthermore, there is merit in the submission of the appellant that none of the evidences used for making addition in this case conclusively establishes that the alleged person is the assessee and not some other Ajay Jalan. The AO in his assessment order has also admitted to the fact that no documents contain the name of the company for this relevant Assessment Year even though the same was there in A.Y. 2016-17 & A.Y 2017-18.
QUOTE
“Though, the above table as well as documents pertaining to the instant year contain the name of lender as ‘Ajay Jalan’ and no document contain the name of any company specifically, assessee’s case for the AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 were taken up earlier for scrutiny on the basis of search & seizure action in assessee’s cane where in the order passed uls 143(3)/153A of the Act, addition was made on the basis of similar information, wherein various seized documents (some of auch documents have been reproduced below) contain the name of assessee Ajay Jalan af many places with the name of Snowtex Tradelink”
In this regard, the fact that the case for A.Y 2019-20 and A.Y 2022-23 was also reopened on similar grounds of lack of identity of the assessee Shri Ajay Jalan, and later it was proved by the assessee that the alleged person was some other Ajay Jalan and not the assessee and the same was later on dropped, goes to prove that the identity of the assessee is not conclusively proved.
There is also merit in the submission of the appellant that neither the assessee, nor the finance broker or the alleged borrowers had accepted the transactions or identified or named the assessee as the person who has given any loan in cash. The cases cited by the appellant also squarely favour the case of the assessee. Therefore, In view of the above I do not find merit in the addition of cash loan of Rs.3,50,00,000/-u/s 69A of the Act by the AO. Accordingly, the addition made of Rs.3,50,00,000/- is deleted. As a result, the grounds no. 2 to 4 and 8 to 15 are allowed.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the Revenue preferred appeal before us by taking following grounds: –
1. That on the facts and circumstances of this case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding that the notice issued under section 148 of the IT Act. is without jurisdiction and bad in law, by ignoring the fact that the reopening of the assessment was based on fresh, credible and tangible information received through the Risk Management Strategy (RMS) framework and the Ld. Pr. CIT granted approval u/s 151 of the Act after being satisfied with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of this case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding that the proceedings had to be initiated under section 153C and not u/s 148/147 of the Act, by ignoring the fact that the assessment order was passed u/s 143(30/153A of the Act on 28.03.2022 and the reassessment proceedings were initiated thereafter on 15.03.2023 on the basis of tangible information of income escapement received through Risk Management Strategy framework.
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of this case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition the addition of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-..
5. Contrary to that Ld. AR supports the impugned order thereby submitting that assessee was assessed U/s 153A / 143(3) vide assessment order dated 28.03.2022 and case of the assessee was reopened vide notices u/s 148 through it has conclusively concluded that the information was available before the Revenue and the time of the assessment and no addition was made in this regard and it is a fact that at the time of reopening no new information was received by the AO. The Ld. AR by placing copy of the assessment order of assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18 submits that during the said AY total addition of Rs. 7,65,00,000/- and Rs. 5,95,00,000/- was made based on the information and addition was deleted by the CIT(A) by passing an order U/s 250 of the Act, therefore, reassessment has resulted into change in opinion which is not tenable in law. The Ld. AR further submits that during the assessment proceeding, it has been submitted by the assessee that he does not know any personal namely Sri. Praveen Kumar Kasera and to this effect an affidavit has also been submitted.The Ld. AR submits that AO has made addition of cash loan only on the basis of presumption and surmises and on the statement of Sri. Praveen Kumar Kasera ignoring the submission made by the assessee that he does not know Sri Praveen Kumar Kasera.It has further been submitted that no incriminating materials were found in the course of search nor in the assessment order AO refer to any incriminating materials found and ceased in the course of search. The Ld. AR submits that Assessing Officers made addition on the documents found/ceased in the course of the search carried out in the case of Kasera Group (3rd Party) and paper found was in fact a loose sheet and that also do not bear the signature of assessee nor any of his family members.The AR further submits that no corroborative evidences has been brought by the Assessing Officers to establish that assessee had unaccounted transaction through Kaseras.
6. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that Assessing Officers in the assessment order has stated that information in the case of assessee was received on insight portals stating that as per ceased materials found in search at the premises of Kasera Group,the assessee Shri Ajay Jalan has given cash loan amount to Rs. 3,50,00,000/- through the finance broker Kasera and has earned interest income on the said loan.The Assessee in his submission has clearly stated that other than search U/s 132(1) on 30.11.2018 at the premises of Kasera, search U/s 132(1) was also conducted at the premises of assessee Shri Ajay Jalan and its other group concern on 07.12.2020. Consequent to the search on the assessee, the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20,was assessed u/s 153(A)/143(3) on 28.03.2022. It is pertinent to mention here that search in the case of finance brokers Kasera was conducted on 30.11.2018 much prior to the assessment order passed U/s 153(A)/143(3) dated 28.03.2022 and the AO was in possession of the alleged incriminating material relating to cash loan and the same was not considered for making addition in the case of the Assessee. So, the further reopening of the assessment in some information by issuing notices u/s 148 on 06.04.2023 as nothing but change in the opinion of the AO. It is further important to mention here that addition made of cash loan of Rs. 6,65,00,000 and Rs. 5,95,00,000 u/s 69A based on the same information in the assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18 had been deleted by the CIT(A). It is important to mention here that in case of search at the premises of a person if certain incriminating documents relating or belonging to an assessee is found and ceased the Section to open the case of the assessee is Section 153C of the Act. It is further important to mention here that during the assessment proceeding by filing an affidavit assessee has submitted that he does not know any person by the name of any person Sri. Prabhat Kumar Kasera.
7. On perusal of the impugned order and finding of the CIT(A), we find that CIT(A) has discussed the legality of the issuance of the notices u/s 147, discussed the case of the assessee on merit and thereafter allow the appeal of the assessee on legal ground as well as on merit also.We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. As a result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed.
Kolkata, the 21st April , 2026.
Author Bio
