AI Insights
The case involves Mextech Realty Private Limited, which appealed against the reassessment order for the assessment year 2009-10. The reassessment was initiated based on information that the company received accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 2 Crores from entities managed by Pravin Jain. The original assessment had accepted the transactions as genuine, but subsequent information led to a reopening of the assessment. The Tribunal examined whether the reopening was justified and whether the reasons recorded met the legal requirements under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124800 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-05-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
03-05-2023
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
17-04-2022
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mextech Realty Private Limited (formerly known as nandivardhan Construction Pvt. Ltd.) 201, Oasis Silver Stone, Ram Maruti Road Near Gajanan Maharaj Temple, Thane- 400602 Vs. DCIT Cen. Cir. 2, Thane 6 th floor, Room No. 13, A-Wing, Ashar IT Park, Thane-400604. PAN No. AACCN1260G Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek Jain, Ld. ARs Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR Date of Hearing : 04.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 O R D E R Per N. K. Choudhry, Judicial Member: The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 28.12.2022 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner)’} u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AY 2009-10. 2 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited 2. In the instant case, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147/148 of the Act by recording the following reasons dated 28 th Sept. 2016:- No. THN/DOIT/ CO-a/Reasons/2016-17/ Dated 28.09.2016 To, M/s NANDIVARDHAN CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD 201, OASIS SILVERSTONE, RAM MARUTI ROAD, THANE WEST, PAN: AACCN1260G Sub: Supply of reasons recorded under section 148(2) of the I.T. Act for re-opening of assessment for AY. 2009-10 reg. Kindly refer to the above 2. Vide letter dated 21.04.2018 received in this office on 22.04.2016 you have acknowledge the receipt of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03 2016 and requested for supply of reasons of re-opening of the statement for assessment year 2000-10 in your case. 3. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03 2016 was issued and duly served upon you by this office after duly recording the reasons of reopening for AY 2009-10. In response to the said notice, you vide letter dated 21.09.2016 you have stated that the return filed u/s 153A dated 29.10.2012 disclosing total income at Rs. 2,90,953/- for AY 2009-10 may be treated as return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2016. 4. The assessment in your case was reopened us this office had received information from Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4, Surat through Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2. Thane on 30.03 2016 that M/s Alka Diamond Ind. Ltd. M/s Vanguard 3 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited Jewels Ltd. and M/s. Yash V. Jewels Ltd. companies of Pravin Jain Group have given accommodation entries to the assessee. M/s Nandivardhan Construction Pvt. Ltd. during F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2009-10 amounting to Rs. 2,00,00,00-0/- during the year under consideration. A search/survey action u/s 132/133A were carried out in the case of M/s Pravin Jain Group on 01.10.2013 wherein certain incriminating books of accounts, loose papers were found and seized. Based on the documents seized as well as the statements recorded under section 132 and 131 of promoters/directions of M/s Pravin jain Group, The Dy.CIT, CC-4, Surat through ACIT Circle-2, Thane has informed that M/s Pravin Jain Group has provided accommodation entry transaction amounting to Rs. 2 Crores to the assessee M/s Nandivardhan Constructions Pvt. Ltd. during AY. 2009-10. While filing the return of income under section 139(1) of 153A/C or during the course of assessment proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, you have not disclosed this transaction undertaken with Pravin Jain Group this issue also remained to be examined at the time of completion of assessment proceedings in your case for the year under consideration. As a result, you understated the income for A.Y. 2009- 10 amounting to Rs. 2 Crore which escaped assessment for failure on your part to disclose the true and correct income and remained to be added to the total income of the assessee while passing order under section 153(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act. This resulted in escapement of income to the extent of Rs. 2 Crore for A.Y. 2009-10. 5. In view of the above facts of the case, assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 was re-opened within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by this office on 30.03.2016 after duly recording reasons 3. The assessee against the recording the reasons/reopening the assessment, vide letter dated 8 th Nov. 2016 raised the following objections:- 4 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited 5 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited 6 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited 4. The AO though considered the objections raised by the assessee qua recording of the reasons/initiation of reopening proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act, however, not found the same as tenable and consequently rejected and disposed off, by concluding as under:- 5. It is pertinent to note that the assessee was in receipt of income amounting to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- for the assessment year 2009-10 in the form of accommodation entry from companies/firms managed by Shri Pravin Jain. The assessee concealed this material facts while disclosing its total income either u/s 139/1) or 153A or during assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. It was clear failure and concealment on the part of the assessee to disclose true and correct income. Therefore, it is quite clear that the assessee has not offered her true and correct income for taxation for A.Y 2009-10. 7 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited 5.1 With respect to the objection raised by the assessee, it is to be mentioned here that section 147 authorizes and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. At this stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Whether the materials would conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at this stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer is within the realm of subjective satisfaction. 6. From the above it can be easily drawn that assessment proceedings u/s 147 for AY 2009-10 cannot be dropped as the above mentioned facts, circumstances and reasons recorded by the undersigned clearly indicate that the assessee has not disclosed its true and correct income for AY 2009-10 and income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- has escaped assessment for AY 2009-10. Therefore the provisions of section 147 of the Act has been invoked in the case of the assessee on material facts being concealed by the assessee and not mere a change of opinion as raised in the objection raised by the assessee vide letter dated 08.11.2016.In view of the above facts, the objections raised by the assessee are not tenable in law and on facts. 7. In view of the above, the assessee's objection are hereby rejected and disposed off in accordance to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO &Ors. (2003) 179 CTR (SC). 8 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited 5. The AO could not found the transactions carried out by the assessee with M/s Alka Diamond Industries Ltd., M/s Vanguard Jewels Ltd. & M/s Yash V. Jewels Ltd. as genuine and acceptable for the following reasons:- • The confirmation of M/s. Alka Diamond Industries Ltd., M/s. Vanguard Jewels Limited & M/s. Yash V Jewels Ltd could not be taken as the proof of accommodation entry received by the assessee as a genuine transaction. • During the course of search on Praveen Jain Group, on the basis of incriminating document seized and statement recorded, it was revealed that the companies controlled by the Praveen Jain were issuing accommodation entries. • In the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, the persons working for Shri Praveen Jain & Group have admitted the fact that all companies managed by Praveen Jain are paper companies only providing accommodation entries. • In the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, Shri. Praveen Jain has himself admitted the fact that all companies managed by him are paper companies only providing accommodation entries. • Praveen Jain himself is a director in few concerns only. However, through various dummy directors/proprietors, he controls, operates, and manages a large no of concerns. • All Such concerns are not carrying out any genuine business. They do not have any physical stock of goods, which they claimed to be dealing in. • All such concerns have no employed persons except the few common accountants who manage accounts and banking transactions of all such concerns. • All such concerns are indulging in the activity of providing accommodation entries only. • In view of the above findings during search on Praveen Jain Group, the confirmation given by the entry providers M/s. Alka 9 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited Diamond Industries Ltd., M/s. Vanguard Jewels Limited & M/s. Yash V Jewels Ltd do not have any evidentiary value. • The confirmation given by M/s. Alka Diamond Industries Ltd., M/s. Vanguard Jewels Limited & M/s. Yash V Jewels Ltd u/s 133(6) do not have any evidentiary value in the light of fact that these entities are engaged in the business of accommodation entry. • M/s. Alka Diamond Industries Ltd., M/s. Vanguard Jewels Limited & M/s. Yash V Jewels Ltd figure in the list of companies managed by the Praveen Jain. 7. The extract of the statements mentioned above is reproduced as under:- 7.1 Extract of the statement of Shri Nilesh Parmar, who is the proprietor of M/s Mohit International, recorded under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in room No 434, 4th Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai on 02.10.2013: xxx 7.2 Extracts of the Statement of oath of Shri Uttam C. Hinger recorded on 03/10/2013 u/s 132(4) of the IT Act 1961. xxx 8. Admission of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain: During the search, Shri. Praveen Kumar Jain in his statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01/10/2013 admitted that he is indulged in providing accommodation entries and also explained the complete modus operandi of providing such entries. xxxxxxxxx 6. The AO ultimately on the basis of statements of the Directors/Entry Providers, treated the share application money of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- received from M/s. Alka Diamond Industries Ltd., M/s. Vanguard Jewels Limited & M/s. Yash V Jewels Ltd. as a sham transaction and an accommodation entry and consequently, added to 10 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited the same to the total income of the assessee, for the year under consideration. 7. The assessee being aggrieved challenged the recording of the reasons, reopening of the assessment and issuance of notice dated 30.03.2016 u/s 148 of the Act and also the making of the additions by the AO on merit. 8. The Ld. Commissioner not only rejected the grounds raised by the assessee qua re-opening of the assessment proceedings by recording the reasons u/s 147/148 of the Act, but also rejected the grounds raised qua merits of the case. 9. The assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us and mainly claimed that in the instant case, the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act were initiated wherein the assessee was asked to provide the supporting details in respect of share capital received during the year under consideration, which were duly provided to the AO and after due verification, the AO accepted the same as genuine. Therefore, it can easily be construed that reopening has been done merely due to change of opinion. Further the AO without making specific inquiry before reopening of the case merely relied on the information received from the Investigation Wing and without corroborating the same, reopened the case on borrowed satisfaction which is not permissible in the eyes of law as well as judicial precedents. Further the reopening of the instant case is not based on any tenable material because alleged accommodation entries provider never stated that transactions entered into with the assessee are not genuine. At last, the assessee claimed that where the original 11 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited assessment is completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, then no reopening can be done after 4 years from the end of the assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts. It is necessary on the part of the AO to point out such failure in the reasons recording, but not otherwise. The assessee in support of its contention also relied on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever vs. R. B. Wadkar (2004) 137 taxman 479 (Bom), Gateway Leasing (Pvt. ) Ltd vs. ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 442 (Bom) and Punia Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2023) 149 taxmann.com 53 (Bom). 10. On the contrary, Ld. DR refuted the claim of the assessee by submitting that though the assessee had objected to reopening of the case at a very first step of the reassessment proceedings, however this issue did not find mentioned in the objection filed before the AO. The assessee had raised the contention that during the course of original assessment proceedings, the relevant documents were submitted and the issue was verified. In fact the AO has pointed out clearly that the information regarding 3 parties pertaining to Pravin Jain Group that they are involved in giving accommodation entries and are not doing any regular business, came to its notice subsequent to the completion of the assessment proceeding. Since new facts emerged which were sufficient to believe that income has escaped assessment and consequently a notice u/s 148 was issued after taking due approval from the competent higher authority by considering the fact that 4 years had elapsed from the relevant assessment year. That during the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner too, the Assessee emphasized only on the ground that reopening was bad and 12 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited based on change of opinion and therefore not valid, however the issue regarding mentioning of non-disclosure of true and material facts as raised now, was not raised. Even before the Hon’ble Tribunal, the assessee simply mentioned the applicability of the first proviso of section 147 of the Act, without specifically pointing out the issue in the grounds of appeal. Even otherwise the judgments cited by the assessee are clearly distinguishable. Ld. DR further claimed that there are several judgments in reference wherein the Hon’ble High Courts clearly held that there is no requirement in law that in the reasons such failure, should has expressly stated in the words of the first proviso of section 147 of the Act. If on reading of reasons, it is possible to infer or draw a logic that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the requirement of the provisions would stand satisfied. For ready reference, the details of the judgments cited by Ld DR are reproduced below:- (a) (2022) 139 taxmann.com 409(Gujarat) Gujarat High Court in the Case of Pushpa Uttamchand Mehta VS ITO (5/4/2022) (b) (2022) 140 taxmann.com 336(Chattisgarh) Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Jugalkishore Paliwal vs JCIT (1/4/2022) (c) (2022) 139 Taxmann.com 404 (Allahabad) Allahabad High Court in the case of Ambuj Foods (P) Ltd. Vs PCIT (11/4/2022) (d) (2007) 18 SOT 297 (Mumbai) ACIT Central Circle 25 Mumbai vs Manubhai & Sons and Co. (11/4/2022) 10.1 At last, the Ld. DR claimed that in view of the above, it is clear that non mentioning of the fact, regarding non disclosure of fully and truly material facts in the reasons /reopening, can not vitiate the reassessment proceedings and issue of the subsequent to receipt of hitherto unknown facts do form as basis of having reasons to believe 13 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited and therefore, validity of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act in the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made above, may be upheld. 11. Heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. At the outset the Assessee claimed that admittedly, in this case the assessment proceedings have been initiated u/s 147 of the Act after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, the first proviso of section 147 of the Act is applicable, which mandates that after the expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year, no action under section 147 of the Act shall be taken, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s 139 or in response to the notice issued in sub section 1 of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that assessment year. 11.1 The Ld. DR emphasized that though the assessee has objected to the reopening at a very first stage of re-assessment proceedings, but this issue raised before the Hon’ble Tribunal, does not found mentioned in the objections filed before the AO and therefore, the issue raised by the assessee to the extent that since the AO has not mentioned in the reasons for reopening that income has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment year, as provided in the first proviso of section 147 of the Act, the reopening proceedings are liable to be quashed, is untenable. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the parties. 14 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited The Assessee has raised the additional issue, which admittedly is legal in nature and emanates from the facts already on record in the proceedings of the authorities below and does not require any independent facts and material for its adjudication, hence as per dictum of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC Vs. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] wherein it has been settled that the legal question can be raised at any time in the appellate proceedings, the objection/contention raised by the Ld. DR is rejected . Consequently we are inclined to resolve the controversy as to whether the reasons recorded are correct in the eyes of law and whether the re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act have rightly been initiated. 11.2 We observe that in the original assessment proceedings, the previous AO, by issuing notice dated 05.12.2012 u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire, asked the Assessee to explain the seized material and furnish the following informations: (i) the name and address of the shareholders who were holding 10% of more shares at any time during the preceding year, (ii) furnish the details of share transferred during the year qua the promoter in case of public limited company, (iii) furnish the details of increase in share capital and source of the same, furnish the details in respect of share premium account, opening balance, reduction during the year, conversion into shares during the year, any other utilization during the year, closing balance. (iv) Further, if the company has made any public issue then furnished the following information:- a) Details of the expenditure as mentioned u/s 35D. b) copies of contracts with the lead manager, registrar to the issue and 15 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited c) share application account and how the funds were used. 11.3 The Assessee in response to the said notice duly submitted the details along with annexures including details of the subscribing of the shares to M/s. Alka Diamond Industries Ltd., M/s. Vanguard Jewels Limited & M/s. Yash V Jewels Ltd. The assessee also submitted various replies to the other notices issued u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire issued by the AO. 11.4 It appears from the original assessment order that the previous AO by going through the submissions of the assessee and after discussing the case with the assessee, computed the income of the assessee by making additions of Rs. 42,000/- only as notional income from house property and made no additions on account of share capital money qua 3 entities referred to above by considering the audited balance, confirmation of their accounts qua transactions involved with the assessee and the affidavits filed by the Directors of the said entities, which goes to show that the AO on the basis of the relevant documents formed its opinion for not making any additions qua share application transactions with the said entities. 11.5 However, the succeeding AO initiated the reassessment proceedings by recording the reasons u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information from DCIT Circle no. 4, Surat, received on 30.03.2016 to the effect that a search/survey action u/s 132/133A was carried out in the case of M/s Pravin Jain Group on 01.10.2013 wherein certain incriminating books of account and loose papers were found and seized, on the basis of which, the statements of Promoters/Directors of M/s Pravin Jain Group were recorded u/s 132 and 131 of the Act, 16 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited wherein the Promoters/Directors were involved in providing accommodation entry transactions amounting to Rs. 2 crores to the assessee during AY 2009-10. Ultimately, the AO treated the transactions of share application money of Rs. 2 crores received from M/s Alka Diamond and others as a sham transactions and accommodation entries on the basis of statement of Shri Pravin Jain recorded on dated 1 st Oct 2013 u/s 132(4) of the Act, wherein he has admitted to have indulged in providing accommodation entries. At this juncture, we are not adverting to the merits of the case, as we are concerned with the recording of reasons u/s 147 of the Act and initiation/re-opening of the reassessment proceedings. 11.6 In the first proviso, there is a legal fiction that where the Assessment u/s 143(3) or 147 of the Act has been made for the relevant assessment year, then no action shall be taken under section 147 of the Act after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The proviso further put up a rider for initiation of any action u/s 147 of the Act i.e. unless where the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under subsection (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. 11.7 In the instant case admittedly, nothing appears from the reasons recorded, as to what fact or material, the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly, which was necessary for assessment year under consideration. Hence the assessment order u/s 147 of the Act, 17 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited on this score itself is liable to be quashed, being fully covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra) wherein it has specifically been held that the AO must disclose in the reasons recorded u/s 147 of the Act, as to which material or facts was not disclosed fully and truly necessary for that assessment year so as to establish the vital link between the reasons and evidences where impugned notices beyond the period of 4 year from the end of the relevant assessment year and it is not complied with the requirements of proviso to section 147 of the Act, then AO has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment proceedings, which were concluded on the basis of assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act and this short count alone, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and set aside. 11.8 We observe that Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order relied on the judgment passed in the case of Kalsha Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (W P No. 3656 of 2018) dated 08.02.2019 (Bom), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “That when the entire reasons read as a whole, sufficiently demonstrates the belief of the AO that the entire assessment goes on bogus claim of share application money having received by the assessee company, therefore lack of true disclosure is writ large on the face of the reasons. Mere non- recitation of expression would not invalidate the reasons or the fact that the reasons are based on allegations of lack of true and full particulars.” Infact, the jurisdictional High Court in Kalsha Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT as well, has not waived the requirement of the 18 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited first proviso of section 147 of the Act completely, but carved out exception, where the reasons when read as a whole more sufficiently demonstrate that the entire assessment goes on bogus claim of share application money and therefore, lack of true disclosures is writ large on the face of reasons, meaning thereby a lack of true disclosures should be discernable on the face of reasons. However in the instant case, in the reasons recorded, there is no whisper about the nature of material facts or documents which were necessary for the assessment year under consideration, which the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly, hence the judgment referred to is not applicable to the instant case. 11.9 Coming to the judgments relied upon by the Ld DR., we observe that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of I. P. Patel & Co. vs. DCIT (2012) 27 taxmann.com 200 (Guj) and other cases referred to above, has clearly held ”wherein from the reading of reasons, it is possible to infer or draw a logic inference that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the requirement of the provision would stand satisfied.” Meaning thereby the Hon’ble High Court neither discarded nor waived the requirement of the first proviso of section 147, but infact carved out exception, which in not applicable in this case, as the previous AO specifically raised the queries, which the Assessee replied by submitting the documents as well and thereafter only, no addition was made on the issue under consideration and there is nothing appears in the reasons recorded for drawing an logic inference qua not disclosing all material facts fully and truly by the assessee. 19 I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Mextech Realty Private Limited 11.10 Hence on the above discussion and respectfully following the judgments referred to above by the Jurisdictional High Court specifically in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that as the AO while recording the reasons and initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act, has not followed the first proviso of section 147 of the Act, consequently, the assessment order itself is un-sustainable being void- ab-initio. Accordingly, the assessment order is quashed and impugned order is set aside. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Orders pronounced in the open court on 31 st May, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (B. R. Baskaran) (N. K. Choudhry) Accountant Member Judicial Member Sr.PS. Dhananjay Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
Other Referred Cases
GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd Vs. ITO &Ors., Hindustan Lever vs. R. B. Wadkar, Gateway Leasing (Pvt.) Ltd vs. ACIT, Punia Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Pushpa Uttamchand Mehta VS ITO, Jugalkishore Paliwal vs JCIT, Ambuj Foods (P) Ltd. Vs PCIT, ACIT Central Circle 25 Mumbai vs Manubhai & Sons and Co., Kalsha Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT, I. P. Patel & Co. vs. DCIT
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act 1961
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026