Yogesh Ginning Mill vs ACIT: ITAT Jaipur on Section 153C Assessments

This case concerns three income-tax appeals filed by Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand — a ginning business based at Govindgarh, Alwar — against assessment orders passed by the ACIT, Circle-1, Alwar under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, covering Assessment Years 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The appeals directly engage recurring pressure-points in search-linked assessments: the timeliness of notices issued under Section 143(2), the validity of additions made under Section 68 on account of unexplained cash and cash credits, and the propriety of invoking Section 145(3) to reject regularly maintained and audited books of accounts. The Tribunal's decision to allow all three appeals in a common order makes this a useful reference point for practitioners dealing with bundled Section 153C proceedings.

This page is a research summary of one specific Indian tax judgment, NOT legal advice. Always verify against the full judgment and consult a professional for case-specific guidance.

---

The case at a glance

• Parties: Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand vs ACIT, Circle I, Alwar
• Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
• Date: 12 December 2024
• Court level: Tribunal (ITAT)
• Sections engaged: 143(3), 153C
• Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded

---

Facts of the case

Yogesh Ginning Mill, a proprietorship concern of Yogesh Chand located near Sitaram Mandir, Govindgarh, Alwar (PAN: ACIPG1584D), faced assessment orders dated 27 December 2019 passed by the ACIT, Circle-1, Alwar under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Act for three assessment years — 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. These assessments arose in the context of the Section 153C framework, which applies to persons other than the searched person when incriminating documents or assets belonging to them are found during a search.

For AY 2018-19 (ITA No. 540/JPR/2024), the AO enhanced the assessee's returned income of Rs. 7,83,760 to Rs. 25,75,910, creating a demand of Rs. 23,68,011. The additions included Rs. 10,82,000 under Section 68 on account of cash seized by GPR, Rs. 3,60,000 under Section 68 on account of unexplained cash credits, and Rs. 3,50,150 under Section 145(3) on account of rejection of books of accounts. For AY 2016-17 (ITA No. 1044/JPR/2024), the returned income of Rs. 4,43,946 was enhanced to Rs. 15,88,039, with additions of Rs. 10,22,940 under Section 68 and Rs. 1,21,153 under Section 145(3). For AY 2017-18 (ITA No. 1045/JPR/2024), the returned income of Rs. 5,32,951 was enhanced to Rs. 8,44,531, with additions of Rs. 4,41,000 under Section 68 and Rs. 4,03,531 under Section 145(3).

The CIT(A)-4, Jaipur dismissed the assessee's appeals — passing orders on 28 February 2024 (for AY 2018-19) and 10 July 2024 (for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18) — upholding the AO's additions and rejecting the assessee's submissions regarding procedural infirmities and the reliability of its books of accounts. The assessee then approached ITAT Jaipur. AY 2018-19 was treated as the lead case, as the issues across all three appeals were common and the facts of the other two years were identical in material respects.

---

Issues raised

• Whether the notice issued under Section 143(2) was time-barred, rendering the consequent assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C legally unsustainable.
• Whether the additions made under Section 68 — on account of cash seized by GPR and unexplained cash credits — were justified in the absence of proper appreciation of the facts, submissions, and documents placed before the AO.
• Whether the AO's invocation of Section 145(3) to reject the assessee's books of accounts was sustainable, given that the books were regularly maintained and duly audited and no specific defects in them were identified.
• Whether the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by concluding the appellate proceedings without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing and without considering the assessee's submissions.

---

What the court held

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur — constituted by Dr. S. Seethalakshmi (Judicial Member) and Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member), with the order authored by the AM — allowed all three appeals by way of a common order pronounced on 12 December 2024. The outcome_reasoning recorded in the source confirms the appeals were allowed.

The grounds raised across the three appeals are substantively identical and were disposed of together. A recurring submission across all three years was that the Section 143(2) notice was time-barred — a jurisdictional defect that, if accepted, would have rendered the entire assessment void without the need to examine the merits of the additions. The assessee additionally challenged the Section 68 additions on the ground that the AO failed to appreciate the facts, submissions, and documents placed on record, and challenged the Section 145(3) rejection of books on the basis that no specific defects in the regularly maintained, duly audited accounts were identified. The CIT(A) was separately faulted for passing appellate orders without granting adequate hearing opportunity and without considering the submissions, in alleged violation of natural justice principles.

The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeals, on the stated grounds, reflects its acceptance of one or more of the assessee's challenges to the assessments — whether going to the root of jurisdiction (the time-barred notice ground) or to the merits of the additions. The source order records the result as an allowance of all three appeals; the precise primary reasoning operative for each ground of allowance is contained in the body of the order beyond what the text preview reproduces.

---

Strategy observations

1. Jurisdictional ground raised at the threshold: An additional ground — that the Section 143(2) notice was time-barred — was raised before the Tribunal, placing a preliminary challenge to the jurisdiction of the AO ahead of the merits-based additions grounds. In Section 153C proceedings, the validity of the entire assessment chain depends on compliance with mandatory time limits for notices, and this was surfaced as a distinct ground in each of the three appeals.

2. Books-of-accounts challenge tied to absence of identified defects: The assessee's challenge to the Section 145(3) rejection was anchored specifically to the proposition that the AO had not identified any specific defects in the books, which were regularly maintained and duly audited. This framing — absence of identified defect rather than general reliability — appeared consistently across all three assessment years.

3. Bundled appeal structure with a lead case: The assessee's representative submitted that AY 2018-19 be treated as the lead case, given that the issues and facts across all three years were common and interwoven. The Tribunal accepted this approach and disposed of all three appeals through a single common order, a procedural posture that concentrates the outcome at one level of analysis.

4. Natural justice ground maintained in parallel: Alongside the substantive additions grounds, the assessee raised a natural justice ground before the Tribunal — that the CIT(A) had passed the appellate order without providing adequate hearing opportunity and without considering submissions. This procedural ground operated in parallel to the merits-based challenges across the appeals.

5. Section 68 additions contested on factual record: The Section 68 additions — covering seized cash and unexplained cash credits — were challenged on the ground that the AO had not properly appreciated the facts, submissions, and documents furnished during assessment proceedings. The consistent framing across all three years reinforced the position that the additions lacked an adequate factual foundation.

---

Why this case matters

This order is a useful data point for practitioners and researchers dealing with Section 153C-linked assessments, particularly in cases where the same assessee faces bundled scrutiny orders spanning multiple assessment years arising from a single search event. The ITAT Jaipur's allowance of all three appeals in a common order — covering AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 — underscores that procedural defects (such as a time-barred Section 143(2) notice) and substantive infirmities (such as unsubstantiated Section 68 additions and unsupported Section 145(3) book rejections) can independently operate as grounds for relief even where the CIT(A) has dismissed the first-level appeal.

The case also illustrates a pattern recurring across ITAT benches: where books of accounts are regularly maintained and duly audited, the invocation of Section 145(3) without identification of specific defects in those books has been treated as a vulnerable ground in appellate proceedings. Combined with the natural justice challenge to the CIT(A)'s own order, the case demonstrates how both the assessment and the appellate proceedings can come under simultaneous challenge when procedural safeguards at each stage are alleged to have been bypassed.

---

Source

This case is drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals. Original document: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57186720/