DCIT-19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. NIMESH PRAVINCHANDRA MEHTA, MUMBAI

ITA 8102/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which quashed the reassessment order for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment notice issued under Section 148, which was found to be time-barred and procedurally improper. The Revenue challenged the deletion of additions made on account of alleged bogus purchases, which were initially based on information from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A) that the reassessment was invalid due to lack of fresh material and procedural lapses, including the incorrect issuance of the notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer as required under the faceless assessment scheme.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840227 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal, CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Pr. CIT vs Shodiman Investments, Reynolds Shirtings Ltd. vs ACIT, Sociedade Industrial P. Ltd. vs ACIT, Hexaware Technologies vs ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL CHOUDHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: KETAN VAJANI
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained expenditure; Bogus purchase; Reason to believe; Tangible material; Borrowed satisfaction; Procedural lapse; Bogus
• Section: 148; 143(3); 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 8102/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 DCIT-19(1), Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta, 10, 4th floor, Kalyan Bldg. No. 8, Khadilkar Road, Girgaun, Mumbai-400 004. PAN NO. AAOPM 7984 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ketan Vajani, CA Revenue by : Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12/02/2026 Date of pronouncement : 25/02/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds: 1. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the Printed from counselvise.com addition of Rs. 2 income on account of bogus purchases from concerns of Bhanwarlal Jain group, based on credible information received from DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai? 2. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), has erred in directing the AO to delete the bogus purchases made by the AO when the primary issue that whether the purchase party is bogus or purchase is bagus has not been examined because if the purchase party is bogus and purchase is genuine then estimation is correct but if purchase is bogus then the entire purchase amount deserves to be added?\" 3. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in not setting aside the issue to the lower authorities for examination of the primary fact of whether the purchase party is bogus or the entire purchase is bogus? 4. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), was perverse in not considering the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Kanak Impex, which is based on similar facts wherein the assessee failed to prove genuineness?\" 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that assessee, an individual was carrying on the business of trading diamonds as proprietor of M/s Minestar Diam. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income on 24.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs.6,89,630/ income filed by the assessee was selected for sc assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer examined purchase from six parties in the light of information that those parties belonging to Bhawarlal Jain group and restricted t extent of profit margin @ 3% on such purchases out to Rs.9,35,729/-. Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta addition of Rs. 2,21,13,012/- made u/s 69C towards undisclosed income on account of bogus purchases from concerns of Bhanwarlal Jain group, based on credible information received from DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai? 2. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and aw, the Ld. CIT(A), has erred in directing the AO to delete the bogus purchases made by the AO when the primary issue that whether the purchase party is bogus or purchase is bagus has not been examined because if the purchase party is bogus and genuine then estimation is correct but if purchase is bogus then the entire purchase amount deserves to be added?\" 3. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in not setting aside the issue to the authorities for examination of the primary fact of whether the purchase party is bogus or the entire purchase is bogus? 4. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), was perverse in not considering the recent f the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Kanak Impex, which is based on similar facts wherein the assessee failed to prove genuineness?\" Briefly stated, facts of the case are that assessee, an individual was carrying on the business of trading in cut and polished diamonds as proprietor of M/s Minestar Diam. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income on 24.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs.6,89,630/- income filed by the assessee was selected for sc assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed. scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer examined purchase from in the light of information that those parties belonging to Bhawarlal Jain group and restricted the addition to the extent of profit margin @ 3% on such purchases, which was worked . Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta 2 ITA No. 8102/MUM/2025 made u/s 69C towards undisclosed income on account of bogus purchases from concerns of Bhanwarlal Jain group, based on credible information received 2. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and aw, the Ld. CIT(A), has erred in directing the AO to delete the bogus purchases made by the AO when the primary issue that whether the purchase party is bogus or purchase is bagus has not been examined because if the purchase party is bogus and genuine then estimation is correct but if purchase is bogus then the entire purchase amount deserves to be added?\" 3. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in not setting aside the issue to the authorities for examination of the primary fact of whether the purchase party is bogus or the entire purchase is bogus? 4. \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), was perverse in not considering the recent f the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Kanak Impex, which is based on similar facts wherein the Briefly stated, facts of the case are that assessee, an individual in cut and polished diamonds as proprietor of M/s Minestar Diam. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income on -. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and was completed. In the said scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer examined purchase from in the light of information that those parties allegedly he addition to the which was worked Printed from counselvise.com 2.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer again relying on the information, which was case of Shri Bhawarlal Jain income escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act under the old provisions as extended by the TOLA on 30.06.2021. The assessee again filed return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act declaring the income of Rs.6,89,627/ the Assessing Officer, Hon’ble Supreme Court in in Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 dated 04.05.2022, after considering the submission of the assessee, Section 148A(d) and issued a fresh notice under Section 148 on 17.07.2022. 2.2 Thereafter, the assessment was transferred to faceless assessment unit wherein the Assessing Officer considered the total amount of the purchases amounting to Rs.2,21,13,012/ unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and total income was determined at Rs.2,28,02,639/ 147 of the Act dated 22.05.2023. 2.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the assessment both on legal grounds (jurisdiction and limitation) and on before us the Revenue is in appeal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta Subsequently, the Assessing Officer again relying on the , which was received from the search proceeding in the case of Shri Bhawarlal Jain group, recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act under the old provisions as extended by the TOLA on 30.06.2021. n filed return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act declaring the income of Rs.6,89,627/ the Assessing Officer, following the mechanism prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal Appeal No. 3005/2022 dated 04.05.2022, after considering the submission of the assessee, the AO passed an order under Section 148A(d) and issued a fresh notice under Section 148 on Thereafter, the assessment was transferred to faceless essment unit wherein the Assessing Officer considered the total amount of the purchases amounting to Rs.2,21,13,012/ unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and total income was determined at Rs.2,28,02,639/- by way of order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. the Act dated 22.05.2023. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the assessment both on (jurisdiction and limitation) and on merits before us the Revenue is in appeal by way of raising grounds as Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta 3 ITA No. 8102/MUM/2025 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer again relying on the same received from the search proceeding in the recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act under the old provisions as extended by the TOLA on 30.06.2021. n filed return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act declaring the income of Rs.6,89,627/-. Thereafter, following the mechanism prescribed by the Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal Appeal No. 3005/2022 dated 04.05.2022, after considering the AO passed an order under Section 148A(d) and issued a fresh notice under Section 148 on Thereafter, the assessment was transferred to faceless essment unit wherein the Assessing Officer considered the total amount of the purchases amounting to Rs.2,21,13,012/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and total income was by way of order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the assessment both on merits. Aggrieved, before us the Revenue is in appeal by way of raising grounds as Printed from counselvise.com 3. We observe that while the Revenue has assailed the deletion on merits, it has not effectively rebutted the jurisdictional findings of the Ld. CIT(A). It is a settled canon of tax jurisprudence that if the very initiation of reassessment is legally infirm, assessment order is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the said grounds observing as under: “This case was re Investigation Wing. Even if the contention of the case was re-opened on borrowed satisfaction and the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Pr. CIT vsShodiman Investments 422 ITR 337 (Bom); Reynolds Shirtings Ltd. vs ACIT 135 taxmann.com 78 (Bom); Sociedade Industrial P. Ltd. vs ACIT 464 ITR 261 (Bom.) are squarely applicable to the present case is not accepted, it is an undisputed fact that there was no fresh material for re whatever material was available was considered course of original assessment. Added to the fact was the procedural irregularity where notice u/s 148 was issued by the JAO, instead of the FAO, in view of CBDT's notification no. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. Also, the said notice was time barred in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC Online SC 2693. The addition has been made for purchases without rejecting books of accounts, which, strictly speaking, leads to double addition of the same amount. The AO has started the computation of income from the returned income declared by the appellant, which has been arrived at after considering the purchases and sales reflected in the books of accounts and bank statements of the appellant. Considering the overall facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the assessment cannot survive both on law and on merits. The same is, therefore, cancelled. Subject to the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. 4. We have heard rival submissions of the parti the relevant materials on record has allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta We observe that while the Revenue has assailed the deletion on merits, it has not effectively rebutted the jurisdictional findings of the Ld. CIT(A). It is a settled canon of tax jurisprudence that if the very initiation of reassessment is legally infirm, assessment order is void ab initio. As far as legal ground is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the said grounds observing This case was re-opened on the basis of inputs of the Investigation Wing. Even if the contention of the appellant that the opened on borrowed satisfaction and the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Pr. CIT vsShodiman Investments 422 ITR 337 (Bom); Reynolds Shirtings Ltd. vs ACIT 135 taxmann.com 78 (Bom); Sociedade Industrial P. Ltd. vs ACIT 464 ITR 261 (Bom.) are squarely applicable to the present case is not accepted, it is an undisputed fact that there was no fresh material for re-opening of the case and whatever material was available was considered course of original assessment. Added to the fact was the procedural irregularity where notice u/s 148 was issued by the JAO, instead of the FAO, in view of CBDT's notification no. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. Also, the said notice was time barred n view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC Online SC 2693. The addition has been made for purchases without rejecting books of accounts, which, strictly speaking, leads to double addition of the same amount. he AO has started the computation of income from the returned income declared by the appellant, which has been arrived at after considering the purchases and sales reflected in the books of accounts and bank statements of the appellant. Considering the rall facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the assessment cannot survive both on law and on merits. The same is, therefore, cancelled. Subject to the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. We have heard rival submissions of the parti the relevant materials on record. We find that firstly has allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta 4 ITA No. 8102/MUM/2025 We observe that while the Revenue has assailed the deletion on merits, it has not effectively rebutted the jurisdictional findings of the Ld. CIT(A). It is a settled canon of tax jurisprudence that if the very initiation of reassessment is legally infirm, the resulting s far as legal ground is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the said grounds observing opened on the basis of inputs of the appellant that the opened on borrowed satisfaction and the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Pr. CIT vsShodiman Investments 422 ITR 337 (Bom); Reynolds Shirtings de Formonto Industrial P. Ltd. vs ACIT 464 ITR 261 (Bom.) are squarely applicable to the present case is not accepted, it is an undisputed opening of the case and whatever material was available was considered during the course of original assessment. Added to the fact was the procedural irregularity where notice u/s 148 was issued by the JAO, instead of the FAO, in view of CBDT's notification no. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. Also, the said notice was time barred n view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC Online SC 2693. The addition has been made for purchases without rejecting books of accounts, which, strictly speaking, leads to double addition of the same amount. he AO has started the computation of income from the returned income declared by the appellant, which has been arrived at after considering the purchases and sales reflected in the books of accounts and bank statements of the appellant. Considering the rall facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the assessment cannot survive both on law and on merits. The same Subject to the above discussion, the appeal is allowed.” We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused . We find that firstly, the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that Printed from counselvise.com reopening was based on opinion’. In the case while the Act also the Assessing Officer referred the information received in the case of Shri Bhawarlal Jain group and after considering the submission of the assessee, he restricted the such purchases. Again su reopened the assessment on the very same information which was already available with the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. 4.1 Thus, the record reveals that the mater reopening, information from the Investigation Wing regarding the Bhanwarlal Jain Group during the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3). Hon'ble Supreme Court in 561) held that \"reason to believe\" cannot be a \"reason to suspect\" or a mere \"change of opinion.\" Reopening on the same set of facts without any fresh tangible material constitutes a prohibited change of opinion. We concur with the L revisit a concluded issue based on \"borrowed satisfaction,\" which is impermissible in law. 4.2 Further, the assessee challenged under Section 148 on the grounds of limitation noted that in view of the decision of the Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal ( Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta reopening was based on ‘borrowed satisfaction’ . In the case while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act also the Assessing Officer referred the information received in the case of Shri Bhawarlal Jain group and after considering the submission of the assessee, he restricted the disallowance such purchases. Again subsequently, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the very same information which was already available with the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. he record reveals that the material relied upon for reopening, information from the Investigation Wing regarding the Bhanwarlal Jain Group, was the exact same material considered during the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3). Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR held that \"reason to believe\" cannot be a \"reason to suspect\" or a mere \"change of opinion.\" Reopening on the same set of facts without any fresh tangible material constitutes a prohibited change of opinion. We concur with the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO attempted to revisit a concluded issue based on \"borrowed satisfaction,\" which is impermissible in law. the assessee challenged validity of the notice issued under Section 148 on the grounds of limitation. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (supra) clarified the application of Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta 5 ITA No. 8102/MUM/2025 and ‘change of the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act also the Assessing Officer referred the information received in the case of Shri Bhawarlal Jain group and after considering the disallowance @ 3% of bsequently, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the very same information which was already available with the Assessing Officer during the original ial relied upon for reopening, information from the Investigation Wing regarding the , was the exact same material considered during the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3). The of India Ltd. (320 ITR held that \"reason to believe\" cannot be a \"reason to suspect\" or a mere \"change of opinion.\" Reopening on the same set of facts without any fresh tangible material constitutes a prohibited change d. CIT(A) that the AO attempted to revisit a concluded issue based on \"borrowed satisfaction,\" which is validity of the notice issued . The Ld. CIT(A) Hon'ble Supreme Court in clarified the application of Printed from counselvise.com the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) to regime, the notice dated 30.6.2021 issued under the old provision the Act and thereafter the Assessing Officer was required to issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act within the su directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) held that the notice u/s 148 of the Act could b period applying TOLA. It is held that if notice is issued within the surviving period then it will be valid. If it is not within surviving period, it will be time barred. In the case of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has duly examined that there is no surviving period available in the case of the assessee and therefore, the notice u/s 148 of the Act could be issued by 06.06.2022. reproduced as under:  Original Notice u/s. 148 issued on 30 17  Surviving Period available to the AO minus 30 possible date of the extended window).  Material Provided to the assessee 23-5-2022  Assessee did  Two weeks from date of notice u/s. 148A(b) Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) to the new reassessment dated 30.6.2021 issued u/s 148 of the Act under the old provision) was considered to be notice u/s 148A(b the Act and thereafter the Assessing Officer was required to issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act within the survival period available as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) held that the notice u/s 148 of the Act could be issued within the surviving period applying TOLA. It is held that if notice is issued within the surviving period then it will be valid. If it is not within surviving period, it will be time barred. In the case of the assessee, the Ld. amined that there is no surviving period available in the case of the assessee and therefore, the notice u/s 148 of the Act could be issued by 06.06.2022. The relevant date reproduced as under: Original Notice u/s. 148 issued on 30-6-2021 Surviving Period available to the AO - 0 Days minus 30-6-2021(as the notice was issued on the last possible date of the extended window). aterial Provided to the assessee - Fresh 148A(b) 2022- Page No. 22 Assessee did not file reply to notice u/s. 148A(b) Two weeks from date of notice u/s. 148A(b) Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta 6 ITA No. 8102/MUM/2025 the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of w reassessment u/s 148 of the Act ( nsidered to be notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and thereafter the Assessing Officer was required to issue rvival period available as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) held that e issued within the surviving period applying TOLA. It is held that if notice is issued within the surviving period then it will be valid. If it is not within surviving period, it will be time barred. In the case of the assessee, the Ld. amined that there is no surviving period available in the case of the assessee and therefore, the notice u/s 148 of the The relevant date-wise chart is 2021 - Page No. 0 Days-i.e. 30-6-2021 (as the notice was issued on the last Fresh 148A(b) - Dt. not file reply to notice u/s. 148A(b) Two weeks from date of notice u/s. 148A(b)-6-6-2022 Printed from counselvise.com  The clock starts ticking from 6 have issued 148 Notice within surviving period from 6 2022 i.e. 0 Days = 6th June, 2022  Notice u/s. 148 issue Period Page No. 27 & 28  Hence the notice issued is Time barred 4.3 As the \"clock started ticking\" on 06.06.2022 and the AO had 0 days of surviving period, the notice under Section 148 ought to have been issued by 06.06.202 is clearly time-barred finding that the notice failed the test of limitation prescribed by the Apex Court. 4.4 Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has also reassessment proceedings on the ground that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of Faceless Assessing Officer assessment procedure the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in th Technologies (supra). proceedings as invalid ‘limitation for issue of notice challenging the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. 4.5 Since the reassessment proceedings are invalidated on the threshold grounds of Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta The clock starts ticking from 6-6-2022 - The AO could have issued 148 Notice within surviving period from 6 2022 i.e. 0 Days = 6th June, 2022 Notice u/s. 148 issued on 17-7-2022 - Beyond Surviving Period Page No. 27 & 28 Hence the notice issued is Time barred As the \"clock started ticking\" on 06.06.2022 and the AO had 0 days of surviving period, the notice under Section 148 ought to have been issued by 06.06.2022. The notice issued on 17.07.2022 barred. We find no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)’s finding that the notice failed the test of limitation prescribed by the Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has also examined validity of reassessment proceedings on the ground that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of Faceless Assessing Officer(FAO) under the provisions of faceless assessment procedure, which is invalid relying on th the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware . Since we have already held the as invalid on the ground of ‘change of opinion for issue of notice, we are not adjudicating t challenging the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Since the reassessment proceedings are invalidated on the threshold grounds of \"Change of Opinion\" and Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta 7 ITA No. 8102/MUM/2025 The AO could have issued 148 Notice within surviving period from 6-6- Beyond Surviving As the \"clock started ticking\" on 06.06.2022 and the AO had 0 days of surviving period, the notice under Section 148 ought to 2. The notice issued on 17.07.2022 . We find no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)’s finding that the notice failed the test of limitation prescribed by the examined validity of reassessment proceedings on the ground that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead under the provisions of faceless which is invalid relying on the decision of e case of Hexaware held the reassessment change of opinion’ and , we are not adjudicating the ground challenging the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Since the reassessment proceedings are invalidated on the and \"Statutory Printed from counselvise.com Limitation,\" the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning the other legal ground and merits of the addition (bogus purchases vs. profit estimation) are rendered purely principle that when the root is removed, the branches fall. Having upheld the quashing of the assessment order on jurisdictional grounds, we decline to adjudicate on the merits of the addition left open. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 25/02/2026 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning the other legal ground and merits of the addition (bogus purchases vs. profit estimation) are rendered purely academic. It is a fundamental principle that when the root is removed, the branches fall. Having eld the quashing of the assessment order on jurisdictional grounds, we decline to adjudicate on the merits of the addition In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ounced in the open Court on 25/02/2026. Sd/ AVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Nimesh Pravinchandra Mehta 8 ITA No. 8102/MUM/2025 the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning the other legal ground and merits of the addition (bogus purchases vs. . It is a fundamental principle that when the root is removed, the branches fall. Having eld the quashing of the assessment order on jurisdictional grounds, we decline to adjudicate on the merits of the addition and In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. /02/2026. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "