KALPANA DILIP MEHTA AS LEGAL HEIR OF DILIP DALPATLAL MEHTA,WALKESHWAR V. ACIT 19(1), MUMBAI

ITA 679/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kalpana Dilip Mehta, the legal heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 51, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2007-08. The primary issues revolved around the validity of the notices and the reassessment order, which were claimed to be time-barred and based on unverified documents. The Tribunal examined the procedural adherence in issuing notices under sections 143(2) and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the substantive validity of the additions made to the assessee's income based on the documents received from foreign authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112146 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT v. Hotel Bluemoon, PCIT v. Paramount Biotech Industries, Dhaval Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Sawhney v. ACIT, Bajrang Textiles v. CIT, Sadana Electric Stores v. CIT, Consulting Engineering Services India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BISWANATH DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: SUCHEK ANCHALIYA; AW
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Document seized; Documents seized; Period of limitation; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Block assessment; Competent authority; Double taxation relief; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 143(3); 143(2); 143(1); 153; 131; 69; 113; 13; 92CA; 69A; 142(2A); 133A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta, 51 Anupam Society, Manav Mandir Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. Vs. ACIT 19(1), Piramal Chambers Mumbai-400012. PAN NO. AACPM 4426 E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Suchek Anchaliya, CA a/w Mr. Tushar Nagori, CA Revenue by : Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 25/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 15/04/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) – 51, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2007-08, raising following grounds: 1. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was time barred and bad in law, and hence, the assessment based on such a notice was ab initio void. Hence, the assessment order is liable to be quashed. 2. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the assessment order dated 18th March, 2014 passed by the AO was time barred, and hence, bad in law. Hence, order is liable to be quashed. 3. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act merely on the basis of loose, uncertified and unverified sheets purportedly received from foreign government is not justif the reopening of assessment is bad in law and may be quashed. 4. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the recorded reasons contain factual mistakes that the alleged undisclosed bank account was found \"consequent to survey\". As it is not possib once recorded, the factual mistake in the recorded reasons make the reopening of assessment bad in law. 5. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the AO was not justified in disposing off the Assessee's objections to reopening of assessment in a non without dealing with any of the Assessee's contentions. Therefore, the reopening of Assessee's assessment was bad in law 6. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Assessee did not have any bank account outside Ind much less the bank account in respect of which addition has been made. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that on the basis of the alleged 'base note' (which also did not contain the accurate particulars of the Assessee), it could not be established that outside India. 7. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that no addition could have been made on the basis of uncertified/ unauthenticated loose sheets, and hence, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,48,46, 8. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the refusal of the Assessee to sign the consent waiver form was justified as signing the same would have amounted to making a false Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 1. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was time barred and bad in law, and assessment based on such a notice was ab initio void. Hence, the assessment order is liable to be 2. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the assessment order dated 18th March, 2014 passed by the AO was time barred, and hence, bad in law. Hence, the assessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act merely on the basis of loose, uncertified and unverified sheets purportedly received from foreign government is not justified. Hence, the reopening of assessment is bad in law and may be 4. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the recorded reasons contain factual mistakes that the alleged undisclosed bank account was found \"consequent to survey\". As it is not possible to improve upon the reasons once recorded, the factual mistake in the recorded reasons make the reopening of assessment bad in law. 5. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the AO was not justified in disposing off the Assessee's objections to of assessment in a non-speaking manner without dealing with any of the Assessee's contentions. Therefore, the reopening of Assessee's assessment was bad in law 6. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Assessee did not have any bank account outside Ind much less the bank account in respect of which addition has been made. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that on the basis of the alleged 'base note' (which also did not contain the accurate particulars of the Assessee), it could not be established that the Assessee held the bank account outside India. 7. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that no addition could have been made on the basis of uncertified/ unauthenticated loose sheets, and hence, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,48,46,625/-. 8. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the refusal of the Assessee to sign the consent waiver form was justified as signing the same would have amounted to making a false Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta 2 ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 1. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was time barred and bad in law, and assessment based on such a notice was ab initio void. Hence, the assessment order is liable to be 2. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the assessment order dated 18th March, 2014 passed by the AO was time the assessment 3. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act merely on the basis of loose, uncertified and unverified sheets purportedly ied. Hence, the reopening of assessment is bad in law and may be 4. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the recorded reasons contain factual mistakes that the alleged undisclosed bank account was found \"consequent to le to improve upon the reasons once recorded, the factual mistake in the recorded reasons 5. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the AO was not justified in disposing off the Assessee's objections to speaking manner without dealing with any of the Assessee's contentions. Therefore, the reopening of Assessee's assessment was bad in law 6. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Assessee did not have any bank account outside India, much less the bank account in respect of which addition has been made. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that on the basis of the alleged 'base note' (which also did not contain the accurate particulars of the Assessee), it could not be the Assessee held the bank account 7. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that no addition could have been made on the basis of uncertified/ unauthenticated loose sheets, and hence, the CIT (A) erred 8. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the refusal of the Assessee to sign the consent waiver form was justified as signing the same would have amounted to making a false statement that the Assessee was the owner of the alleged account and would h subsequently. Hence, the CIT (A) erred in drawing an adverse inference from the fact of refusal of the Assessee to sign the said consent waiver form. 9. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO had not brought any material on r information was actually received from French Government as alleged. The CIT(A) further failed to provide authenticated/ certified copies of the same in spite of repeated requests which shows the absence of credibility of the source of the alleged information. Hence, the alleged 'base note' could not have been relied upon. 10. The CIT(A) failed to consider the submissions made by the Assessee, the documents relied upon and further erred in confirming the addition on the bas incorrect allegations and surmises & conjectures. Thus, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO in violation of the principle of natural justice. 11. ⁠11. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate the ambiguity in the alleged 'b addition without there being any evidence to show the currency in which the figures were mentioned in the alleged 'base note'. Furthermore, the conversion factor applied to convert such currency into INR was in Hence, the quantification of the amount of addition is bad in law. The Appellant states that the above Grounds of Appeal are in addition to, in the alternative and without prejudice to each other and the Appellant further craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above Grounds of Appeal. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that assessee had originally filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 07.12.2007 declaring total income was processed u/s 143(1) Act’). Subsequently, information was received in the case of the Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 statement that the Assessee was the owner of the alleged account and would have been used against him subsequently. Hence, the CIT (A) erred in drawing an adverse inference from the fact of refusal of the Assessee to sign the said consent waiver form. 9. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO had not brought any material on record to suggest that the alleged information was actually received from French Government as alleged. The CIT(A) further failed to provide authenticated/ certified copies of the same in spite of repeated requests which shows the absence of credibility the source of the alleged information. Hence, the alleged 'base note' could not have been relied upon. 10. The CIT(A) failed to consider the submissions made by the Assessee, the documents relied upon and further erred in confirming the addition on the basis of factually incorrect allegations and surmises & conjectures. Thus, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO in violation of the principle of natural justice. . The CIT (A) failed to appreciate the ambiguity in the alleged 'base note', and hence, erred in confirming the addition without there being any evidence to show the currency in which the figures were mentioned in the alleged 'base note'. Furthermore, the conversion factor applied to convert such currency into INR was incorrect. Hence, the quantification of the amount of addition is bad The Appellant states that the above Grounds of Appeal are in addition to, in the alternative and without prejudice to each other and the Appellant further craves leave to add, d, alter or delete any of the above Appeal. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that assessee had originally filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 07.12.2007 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The return of income as processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Subsequently, information was received in the case of the Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta 3 ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 statement that the Assessee was the owner of the alleged ave been used against him subsequently. Hence, the CIT (A) erred in drawing an adverse inference from the fact of refusal of the Assessee 9. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO had not ecord to suggest that the alleged information was actually received from French Government as alleged. The CIT(A) further failed to provide authenticated/ certified copies of the same in spite of repeated requests which shows the absence of credibility the source of the alleged information. Hence, the alleged 10. The CIT(A) failed to consider the submissions made by the Assessee, the documents relied upon and further erred is of factually incorrect allegations and surmises & conjectures. Thus, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the . The CIT (A) failed to appreciate the ambiguity in ase note', and hence, erred in confirming the addition without there being any evidence to show the currency in which the figures were mentioned in the alleged 'base note'. Furthermore, the conversion factor correct. Hence, the quantification of the amount of addition is bad The Appellant states that the above Grounds of Appeal are in addition to, in the alternative and without prejudice to each other and the Appellant further craves leave to add, d, alter or delete any of the above Briefly stated, facts of the case are that assessee had originally filed his return of income for the year under consideration on Rs. Nil. The return of income tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Subsequently, information was received in the case of the assessee from the ‘French was maintaining a foreign bank account Switzerland. The said information is note in relation to bank account personal details of the assessee including his name, date of birth, place of birth, sex, nationality along with date of opening ba account and amount of the balance in particular year. Subsequently, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 30.09.2011 by the Investigation Wing of the Income Department, Mumbai. During the survey proceedings, the assessee was confronted with the information related to the foreign bank account, then, he accepted the amount lying in the foreign bank account as undisclosed income in his hands. In view of the information received coupled with the finding during the co the survey proceedin believe that income escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2012. During the course of the reassessment proceedings, a summon u/s 131 of the Act was also issued to the assessee. Further a show cause notice was also issued on 23.10.2013 calling upon as why the balance amount of Rs.19,48,46,625/- equivalent to USD 43,29,943 (@ 45 INR per USD) should not be added to the total income of the assessee. the assessee however responded that opened nor operated or controlled by him. The Ld. Assessing Officer Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 French’ Government indicating that the assessee a foreign bank account in HSBC Geneva, . The said information is commonly known as the base in relation to bank account. The said base note containing personal details of the assessee including his name, date of birth, place of birth, sex, nationality along with date of opening ba account and amount of the balance in particular year. survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 30.09.2011 by the Investigation Wing of the Income Department, Mumbai. During the survey proceedings, the assessee h the information related to the foreign bank he accepted the amount lying in the foreign bank account as undisclosed income in his hands. In view of the information received coupled with the finding during the co the survey proceedings, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2012. During the course of the reassessment summon u/s 131 of the Act was also issued to the a show cause notice was also issued on 23.10.2013 calling upon as why the balance amount of equivalent to USD 43,29,943 (@ 45 INR per USD) should not be added to the total income of the assessee. the assessee however responded that said account was neither opened nor operated or controlled by him. The Ld. Assessing Officer Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta 4 ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 Government indicating that the assessee in HSBC Geneva, commonly known as the base . The said base note containing personal details of the assessee including his name, date of birth, place of birth, sex, nationality along with date of opening bank account and amount of the balance in particular year. survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 30.09.2011 by the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department, Mumbai. During the survey proceedings, the assessee h the information related to the foreign bank he accepted the amount lying in the foreign bank account as undisclosed income in his hands. In view of the information received coupled with the finding during the course of he Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2012. During the course of the reassessment summon u/s 131 of the Act was also issued to the a show cause notice was also issued on 23.10.2013 calling upon as why the balance amount of equivalent to USD 43,29,943 (@ 45 INR per USD) should not be added to the total income of the assessee. But, said account was neither opened nor operated or controlled by him. The Ld. Assessing Officer keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case treated the balance lying in foreign bank account of Rs.19,48,46, unexplained income as part of of the Act. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the various legal grounds raised by the assessee and also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merit of the addition. 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal be of raising grounds as reproduced 5. With reference to ground No. 1 of the appeal, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the Paper Book containing pages 1 to 85. The Ld. counsel referred to notice u/s 148 of the Act i 30.03.2012, a copy of which is available on Paper Book page 11. The Ld. counsel submitted that after issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued in the case of the assessee, which is a jurisdictional requirement f scrutiny thereafter as jurisdictional requirement. T Officer was required to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the limitation of six month from the end of the financial year in which the return of income notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued only on 23.10.2013 whereas the limitation for issuing the notice under 143(2) expired on 30.09.2013 , since the return of income in Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case treated the balance lying in foreign bank account of Rs.19,48,46, unexplained income as part of total income of the assessee u/s 69A On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the various legal grounds raised by the assessee and also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merit of the addition. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way as reproduced above. With reference to ground No. 1 of the appeal, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the Paper Book containing pages 1 to 85. The Ld. counsel referred to notice u/s 148 of the Act i 30.03.2012, a copy of which is available on Paper Book page 11. The Ld. counsel submitted that after issuing notice u/s 148 of the no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued in the case of the which is a jurisdictional requirement for taking a case for r as jurisdictional requirement. T Officer was required to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the limitation of six month from the end of the financial year in which of income was filed. The Ld. counsel submitted that first notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued only on 23.10.2013 whereas the limitation for issuing the notice under 143(2) expired on , since the return of income in response Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta 5 ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case treated the balance lying in foreign bank account of Rs.19,48,46,625/- as al income of the assessee u/s 69A On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the various legal grounds raised by the assessee and also dismissed the appeal of the fore the Tribunal by way With reference to ground No. 1 of the appeal, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the Paper Book containing pages 1 to 85. The Ld. counsel referred to notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 30.03.2012, a copy of which is available on Paper Book page 11. The Ld. counsel submitted that after issuing notice u/s 148 of the no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued in the case of the or taking a case for r as jurisdictional requirement. The Assessing Officer was required to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the limitation of six month from the end of the financial year in which The Ld. counsel submitted that first notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued only on 23.10.2013 whereas the limitation for issuing the notice under 143(2) expired on response to notice u/s 148 was filed on 25/04/2 the Act issued is beyond the limitation period. Hence, t proceedings are not sustainable in law. The Ld. counsel for the assessee in support of contention relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Co (2010) 188 taxmann.com 113 (SC) High Court in the case of Ltd. ITA No. 887-888/2017 of the Tribunal in the case ITA No. 2532/Mum/2023 6. In support of ground No. 2 of the appeal, the Ld. counsel submitted that the reassessment order passed by the AO was barred by the limitation and therefore, liable to be quashed. The Ld. counsel referred to the provisions of section 153 of the Act and submitted that reassessment proceedings have to be completed within one year from the end of the relevant financial year in which notice u/s 148 of the Act was the Act has been served on 30/03/2012, therefore, reassessment proceedings was to be completed on or before 31.03.2013 whereas the present assessment proceedings has been completed on 18.03.2014. 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand, relied on the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 25/04/2012 , therefore, the notice u/s 1 is beyond the limitation period. Hence, t proceedings are not sustainable in law. The Ld. counsel for the assessee in support of contention relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Hotel Bluemoon (2010) 188 taxmann.com 113 (SC) , decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Paramount Biotech Industries 888/2017 and decision of the Co- of the Tribunal in the case of Dhaval Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT in ITA No. 2532/Mum/2023. In support of ground No. 2 of the appeal, the Ld. counsel submitted that the reassessment order passed by the AO was barred by the limitation and therefore, liable to be quashed. The Ld. counsel referred to the provisions of section 153 of the Act and itted that reassessment proceedings have to be completed one year from the end of the relevant financial year in which notice u/s 148 of the Act was served. Since the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been served on 30/03/2012, therefore, eassessment proceedings was to be completed on or before 31.03.2013 whereas the present assessment proceedings has been completed on 18.03.2014. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand, relied on the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein he held that in view Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta 6 ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 therefore, the notice u/s 143(2) of is beyond the limitation period. Hence, the scrutiny proceedings are not sustainable in law. The Ld. counsel for the assessee in support of contention relied on the decision of the ACIT v. Hotel Bluemoon decision of Hon’ble Delhi PCIT v. Paramount Biotech Industries -ordinate Bench Dhaval Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT in In support of ground No. 2 of the appeal, the Ld. counsel submitted that the reassessment order passed by the AO was barred by the limitation and therefore, liable to be quashed. The Ld. counsel referred to the provisions of section 153 of the Act and itted that reassessment proceedings have to be completed one year from the end of the relevant financial year in which served. Since the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been served on 30/03/2012, therefore, accordingly eassessment proceedings was to be completed on or before 31.03.2013 whereas the present assessment proceedings has been The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand, he held that in view of the information sought under ex & TR Division of the CBDT, the Assessing Officer got additional one year for completion of the assessment and therefore, assessment was within the limitation. The relev reproduced as under: “5.1 In the 1st the validity of the order U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on the ground that the assessment is time barred. In support of the same, the appellant stat 30.03.2012 and hence the order was required to be passed by 31.03.2013 as against the order passed on 31.03.2014. It has therefore been argued by the appellant that the order has been passed beyond the statutory tim prescribed in the Act and hence is time barred. This contention of the appellant was forwarded to the AO for his comments and report vide letter dated 13.07.2015. The AO vide his letter dated 01.06.2015 has informed that in the instant case a re CBDT on 12.03.2012 to obtain certain information from the Swiss Authorities under the Articles of Exchange in the India - Switzerland DTAA and this request was duly forwarded to the Competent Authority of Switzer Division on 12.03.2013. The AO has also furnished a copy of this letter. It is thus noticed that the instant case ius covered by explanation to Section 153 of the Act which lays down that the time barring period shall not include the pe between forwarding of request to another jurisdiction and the date of receipt of the information or one year whichever is less. In the instant case the request was forwarded on 12.03.2013 and hence the period of limitation is extended by one year and appellant that the case is time barred with the order having been passed on 18.03.2014 as against the time barring date of 31.03.2013. appellant is 8. The Ld. counsel fo during the relevant period there was no treaty between India and Switzerland regarding exchange of information. In the treaty which Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 of the information sought under exchange of information by the FT TR Division of the CBDT, the Assessing Officer got additional one year for completion of the assessment and therefore, assessment was within the limitation. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: st ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the validity of the order U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on the ground that the assessment is time barred. In support of the same, the appellant states that the notice U/s 148 was served on 30.03.2012 and hence the order was required to be passed by 31.03.2013 as against the order passed on 31.03.2014. It has therefore been argued by the appellant that the order has been passed beyond the statutory time limit as prescribed in the Act and hence is time barred. This contention of the appellant was forwarded to the AO for his comments and report vide letter dated 13.07.2015. The AO vide his letter dated 01.06.2015 has informed that in the instant case a reference was made to the FT & TR Division of CBDT on 12.03.2012 to obtain certain information from the Swiss Authorities under the Articles of Exchange in the India Switzerland DTAA and this request was duly forwarded to the Competent Authority of Switzerland by the FT & TR Division on 12.03.2013. The AO has also furnished a copy of this letter. It is thus noticed that the instant case ius covered by explanation to Section 153 of the Act which lays down that the time barring period shall not include the pe between forwarding of request to another jurisdiction and the date of receipt of the information or one year whichever is less. In the instant case the request was forwarded on 12.03.2013 and hence the period of limitation is extended by one year and thus there is no merit in the argument of the appellant that the case is time barred with the order having been passed on 18.03.2014 as against the time barring date of 31.03.2013. This ground of appeal of the dismissed.” The Ld. counsel for the assessee however submitted that during the relevant period there was no treaty between India and Switzerland regarding exchange of information. In the treaty which Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta 7 ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 change of information by the FT TR Division of the CBDT, the Assessing Officer got additional one year for completion of the assessment and therefore, assessment ant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the validity of the order U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on the ground that the assessment is time barred. In support of the same, es that the notice U/s 148 was served on 30.03.2012 and hence the order was required to be passed by 31.03.2013 as against the order passed on 31.03.2014. It has therefore been argued by the appellant that the order e limit as prescribed in the Act and hence is time barred. This contention of the appellant was forwarded to the AO for his comments and report vide letter dated 13.07.2015. The AO vide his letter dated 01.06.2015 has informed that in the ference was made to the FT & TR Division of CBDT on 12.03.2012 to obtain certain information from the Swiss Authorities under the Articles of Exchange in the India Switzerland DTAA and this request was duly forwarded to land by the FT & TR Division on 12.03.2013. The AO has also furnished a copy of this letter. It is thus noticed that the instant case ius covered by explanation to Section 153 of the Act which lays down that the time barring period shall not include the period between forwarding of request to another jurisdiction and the date of receipt of the information or one year whichever is less. In the instant case the request was forwarded on 12.03.2013 and hence the period of limitation is extended by thus there is no merit in the argument of the appellant that the case is time barred with the order having been passed on 18.03.2014 as against the time barring date This ground of appeal of the r the assessee however submitted that during the relevant period there was no treaty between India and Switzerland regarding exchange of information. In the treaty which has been signed is operative from the subsequent period from the relevant assessment y by the FT&TR Division for the assessment year under consideration was ‘invalid reference extension of limitation. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Co Sawhney v. ACIT in ITA No. 1539 9. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record ground is the period within which the Assessing Officer was required to complete the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The relevant limitation period for passing order under section 147 of the Act has been provided under section 153(2) of the Act . The relevant provision during relevant period is reproduced as under: “(2) No order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was served : Provided that where the notice under section 148 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 but before the ist day of April, 2000, such assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of Provided further was served on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 but before the 1st day of April, 2011, the provisions of this sub shall have effect as if for the words \"one year\", the words \"nine months\" had been substituted :109 Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 has been signed is operative from the subsequent period from the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the reference which was sent R Division for the assessment year under consideration invalid reference’ and the invalid reference cannot validate the extension of limitation. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on ision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sawhney v. ACIT in ITA No. 1539-1544/Mum/2017. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. The issue in dispute raised in the period within which the Assessing Officer was required to complete the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The relevant limitation period for passing order under section 147 of the Act has been provided under section The relevant provision during relevant period is reproduced as under: (2) No order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was served : that where the notice under section 148 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 but before the ist day of April, 2000, such assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 2002 : Provided further that where the notice under section 148 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 but before the 1st day of April, 2011, the provisions of this sub shall have effect as if for the words \"one year\", the words nine months\" had been substituted :109 Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta 8 ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 has been signed is operative from the subsequent period from the erence which was sent R Division for the assessment year under consideration and the invalid reference cannot validate the extension of limitation. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on ordinate Bench in the case of Shri Pravin 1544/Mum/2017. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused The issue in dispute raised in the period within which the Assessing Officer was required to complete the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The relevant limitation period for passing order under section 147 of the Act has been provided under section The relevant provision during relevant period is (2) No order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under that where the notice under section 148 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 but before the ist day of April, 2000, such assessment, reassessment or recomputation March, 2002 : that where the notice under section 148 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 but before the 1st day of April, 2011, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words \"one year\", the words Provided also served on or after the 1st day of April, 2006 but before the 1st day of April, 2010 and during the course of the proceedings for the assessment or reassessment income, a reference under sub (i) was made before the 1st day of June, 2007 but an order under sub-section (3) of that section has not be such date; or (ii) is made on or after the 1st d provisions of this sub contained in the second proviso, have effect as if for the words \"one year\", the words \"twenty substituted: Provided also served on or after the 1st day of April, 2010 and during the course of the proceeding for the assessment or reassessment or recomputation of total income, a reference under sub (1) of section 92CA is made, the provisions of this sub shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the second proviso, have effect as if for the words \"one year\", the words \"two years\" had been 9.1 since in the case a reference under sub section (1) of section 92CA was made and this fac assessee, the limitation for passing the reassessment order extends to two years from the end of the financial year in which notice under section 148 was served. Since in the case notice under section 148 of the Act was serv two years from the 31/03/2012, expires on 31/03/2014. has been passed on 18/03/2014, therefore, the Learned DR submitted that reassessment order p limitation period. But the learned counsel for the assessee has Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 Provided also that where the notice under section 148 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 2006 but before the 1st day of April, 2010 and during the course of the proceedings for the assessment or reassessment or recomputation of total income, a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA (i) was made before the 1st day of June, 2007 but an order section (3) of that section has not been made before ) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the provisions of this sub-section shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the second proviso, have effect as if for the words \"one year\", the words \"twenty-one months\" had been Provided also that where the notice under section 148 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 2010 and during the course of the proceeding for the assessment or reassessment or recomputation of total income, a reference under sub (1) of section 92CA is made, the provisions of this sub shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the second proviso, have effect as if for the words \"one year\", the words \"two years\" had been substituted.” 9.1 since in the case a reference under sub section (1) of section 92CA was made and this fact has not been disputed by the assessee, the limitation for passing the reassessment order extends to two years from the end of the financial year in which notice under section 148 was served. Since in the case notice under section 148 of the Act was served on 30/03/2012, the period of the two years from the end of the relevant year financial year i.e. 31/03/2012, expires on 31/03/2014. Since the reassessment order has been passed on 18/03/2014, therefore, the Learned DR submitted that reassessment order passed in the case is within the limitation period. But the learned counsel for the assessee has Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta 9 ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 that where the notice under section 148 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 2006 but before the 1st day of April, 2010 and during the course of the proceedings for or recomputation of total section (1) of section 92CA— (i) was made before the 1st day of June, 2007 but an order en made before ay of June, 2007, the section shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the second proviso, have effect as if for the words one months\" had been section 148 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 2010 and during the course of the proceeding for the assessment or reassessment or recomputation of total income, a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA is made, the provisions of this sub-section shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the second proviso, have effect as if for the words \"one year\", the words 9.1 since in the case a reference under sub section (1) of section t has not been disputed by the assessee, the limitation for passing the reassessment order extends to two years from the end of the financial year in which notice under section 148 was served. Since in the case notice under ed on 30/03/2012, the period of the financial year i.e. Since the reassessment order has been passed on 18/03/2014, therefore, the Learned DR assed in the case is within the limitation period. But the learned counsel for the assessee has referred to the decision of the coordinate bench of the tribunal in the case of Shri Praveen Sawhney (supra), wherein, identical reference sent to the Switerzer in relation to exchange of information, as when held to be an invalid reference as the said protocol was not in operation during the year relevant assessment year. The relevant finding of the coordinate bench (supra) is reproduced as under: “14. The aforementioned Notification No. 2903 (E) is loud and clear and has specifically mentioned that Exchange of Information provided for in the said Protocol will be applicable for information that relates to any fiscal year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2011 and if the said notification is read with the reference made by the department, we find that the specific periods for which the reference has been made calling for information is 1 to 31-3-2012. Theref called by the Revenue by issuing the said reference was invalid for the period prior to 1 15. A reference to the decisions for analogous provisions can throw some light on this issue. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan was considering the reference for Special Audit u/s 142(2A) of the Act in the case of CIT v. Bajrang Textiles [2007] 294 ITR 561 (Raj.) \"Direction of the AO for special audit of assessee's ac under s. 142(2A) one day before the expiry of limitation for completing the block assessment being merely to get extension of time and AO having asked the special auditor to prepare the books of account in the form of cash book and ledger on the bas trading and P&L a/c which is apparently beyond the scope of the provisions of s. 142(2A), the direction for special audit was illegal and consequently, the assessment was barred by time\" 16. Similarly, the Hon'ble All Sadana Electric Stores v. CIT 286/219 Taxman 294 Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 referred to the decision of the coordinate bench of the tribunal in Shri Praveen Sawhney (supra), wherein, identical reference sent to the Switerzerland authorities under DTAA protocol in relation to exchange of information, as when held to be an invalid reference as the said protocol was not in operation during the year relevant assessment year. The relevant finding of the coordinate reproduced as under: 14. The aforementioned Notification No. 2903 (E) is loud and clear and has specifically mentioned that Exchange of Information provided for in the said Protocol will be applicable for information that relates to any fiscal year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2011 and if the said notification is read with the reference made by the department, we find that the specific periods for which the reference has been made calling for information is 1- 2012. Therefore, qua the notification, information called by the Revenue by issuing the said reference was invalid for the period prior to 1-4-2011. 15. A reference to the decisions for analogous provisions can throw some light on this issue. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan was considering the reference for Special Audit u/s 142(2A) of the Act in the case of CIT v. Bajrang Textiles [2007] 294 ITR 561 (Raj.) and held as under : \"Direction of the AO for special audit of assessee's ac under s. 142(2A) one day before the expiry of limitation for completing the block assessment being merely to get extension of time and AO having asked the special auditor to prepare the books of account in the form of cash book and ledger on the basis of seized documents/papers and also trading and P&L a/c which is apparently beyond the scope of the provisions of s. 142(2A), the direction for special audit was illegal and consequently, the assessment was barred by 16. Similarly, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sadana Electric Stores v. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 286/219 Taxman 294 held as under: Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta 10 ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 referred to the decision of the coordinate bench of the tribunal in Shri Praveen Sawhney (supra), wherein, identical land authorities under DTAA protocol in relation to exchange of information, as when held to be an invalid reference as the said protocol was not in operation during the year relevant assessment year. The relevant finding of the coordinate 14. The aforementioned Notification No. 2903 (E) is loud and clear and has specifically mentioned that Exchange of Information provided for in the said Protocol will be applicable for information that relates to any fiscal year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2011 and if the said notification is read with the reference made by the department, we find that the specific periods for which the -4-1995 ore, qua the notification, information called by the Revenue by issuing the said reference was 15. A reference to the decisions for analogous provisions can throw some light on this issue. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan was considering the reference for Special Audit u/s 142(2A) of the Act in the case of CIT v. Bajrang Textiles \"Direction of the AO for special audit of assessee's accounts under s. 142(2A) one day before the expiry of limitation for completing the block assessment being merely to get extension of time and AO having asked the special auditor to prepare the books of account in the form of cash book and is of seized documents/papers and also trading and P&L a/c which is apparently beyond the scope of the provisions of s. 142(2A), the direction for special audit was illegal and consequently, the assessment was barred by ahabad High Court in the case of [2013] 36 taxmann.com \"Assessment— beyond limitation period subjected to special audit by approval of CIT asked to obtain special audit report u/s 152(2A) audited in report was submitted completion of assessment u/s 153(1)(b) expired contended that subsequent was time barred vs. Commissioner of Income 2008 , 152(2A), identical facts were dealt wherein Court held that section 153(1)(a) reads that no order of assess be made u/s 143 or Section 144 at any time after expiry of two years from end of A.Y. in which income was first assessable—Order of assessment had been passed in violation of period prescribed in aforesaid provision, therefore, order passed by A Therefore order passed by lower authorities including Tribunal could not be sustained as facts and circumstances were identical.\" 17. Similar view was taken by the co case of Consulting Engineering Servic [IT Appeal No. 1443 (Delhi) of 2014, dated 5 Relevant findings read as under: \"15. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below and have carefully perused the records qua the issue. It for both the A.Ys i.e. 2008 A.Y is considered to be a separate unit and, therefore, for each A.Y, the Assessing Officer must bring out his case. A perusal of the said notice, which is 70 of the paper book, clearly reveals that though the notice pertained to accounts of A.Y 2008 details referred to therein pertain to A.Y 2009 order u/s 142(2A) of the Act dated 27 exhibited at pages 91 to 98 of the paper, the ACIT has specifically mentioned that \"the special audit u/s 142(2A) of the Act in the case of captioned assessee for A.Y 2009 ordered accordingly\". This clearly proves that while making a reference u/s 142(2A) of the Act and thereafter passing the order u/s 142(2A) of the Act, the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind and mechanically adopted the figure of A.Y 2009-10 and passed the order u/s 142(2A) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10 without realizing tha 09. Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 —Time limit for completion—Order passed beyond limitation period—Sustainability—Assessee was subjected to special audit by approval of CIT—Assessee was asked to obtain special audit report u/s 152(2A)—Accounts audited in report was submitted— However limitation for completion of assessment u/s 153(1)(b) expired—Assessee contended that subsequent assessment order passed by AO was time barred—Held, in case of Sadana Electric Company vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and another ITA No. 167 2008 , 152(2A), identical facts were dealt wherein Court held that section 153(1)(a) reads that no order of assessment shall be made u/s 143 or Section 144 at any time after expiry of two years from end of A.Y. in which income was first Order of assessment had been passed in violation of period prescribed in aforesaid provision, therefore, order passed by AO, CIT and ITAT was set aside Therefore order passed by lower authorities including Tribunal could not be sustained as facts and circumstances were identical.\" 17. Similar view was taken by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Consulting Engineering Services India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 1443 (Delhi) of 2014, dated 5-2 Relevant findings read as under: \"15. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below and have carefully perused the records qua the issue. It is true that noticed dated 21-11-2011 was for both the A.Ys i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10. However, each A.Y is considered to be a separate unit and, therefore, for each A.Y, the Assessing Officer must bring out his case. A perusal of the said notice, which is exhibited at pages 67 to 70 of the paper book, clearly reveals that though the notice pertained to accounts of A.Y 2008-09, but entire financial details referred to therein pertain to A.Y 2009-10. Even the order u/s 142(2A) of the Act dated 27-12-2011 whic exhibited at pages 91 to 98 of the paper, the ACIT has specifically mentioned that \"the special audit u/s 142(2A) of the Act in the case of captioned assessee for A.Y 2009 ordered accordingly\". This clearly proves that while making a /s 142(2A) of the Act and thereafter passing the order u/s 142(2A) of the Act, the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind and mechanically adopted the figure of A.Y 10 and passed the order u/s 142(2A) of the Act for A.Y 10 without realizing that he is dealing with A.Y 2008 Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta 11 ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 Order passed Assessee was Assessee was Accounts However limitation for Assessee assessment order passed by AO Held, in case of Sadana Electric Company tax and another ITA No. 167 2008 , 152(2A), identical facts were dealt wherein Court held ment shall be made u/s 143 or Section 144 at any time after expiry of two years from end of A.Y. in which income was first Order of assessment had been passed in violation of period prescribed in aforesaid provision, O, CIT and ITAT was set aside— Therefore order passed by lower authorities including Tribunal could not be sustained as facts and circumstances ordinate bench in the es India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 2-2019]. \"15. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below and have carefully perused the records 2011 was 10. However, each A.Y is considered to be a separate unit and, therefore, for each A.Y, the Assessing Officer must bring out his case. A exhibited at pages 67 to 70 of the paper book, clearly reveals that though the notice 09, but entire financial 10. Even the 2011 which is exhibited at pages 91 to 98 of the paper, the ACIT has specifically mentioned that \"the special audit u/s 142(2A) of the Act in the case of captioned assessee for A.Y 2009-10 is ordered accordingly\". This clearly proves that while making a /s 142(2A) of the Act and thereafter passing the order u/s 142(2A) of the Act, the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind and mechanically adopted the figure of A.Y 10 and passed the order u/s 142(2A) of the Act for A.Y t he is dealing with A.Y 2008- 16. The contention of the ld. DR that the letter to the appellant referred to both the A.Ys i.e. 2008 and, therefore, there is no error in the same. We do not find any force in this contention of the ld. DR. elsewhere, since each A.Y is considered as a separate unit the Assessing Officer should have made out a case for A.Y 2008-09 only and since the order framed u/s 142(2) of the Act also refers to A.Y 2009 for A.Y 2008-09. 17. The quarrel before us is as to whether the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) is passed within the period of limitation period prescribed under the Act or not. In our considered opinion, for coming to such a conclusion, we can examine whethe in accordance with law or not. It is true that the order passed u/s 142(2A) of the Act is not appealable but when an assessment order is challenged, then the different aspects, which are integral to the process the amount can be challenged in appeal and since the ground before us is challenged for assessment being barred by limitation, we are well within our rights to consider all material aspects which were considered while framing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act.\" 18. The co-ordinate bench in one of the group cases of Bhushan Lal Sawhney v. Dy. CIT 64/190 ITD 225 (Delhi Lata Sawhne 439/DEL/2017 had the occasion to consider reference to Swiss authority and reply received by Swiss authority. It would be pertinent to refer to the said observation of the Co ordinate Bench which reads as under: \"Learned Counsel for the Assessee also placed on record letter Dated 26 addressed to the Government of India in which it is specifically mentioned that information as required could be provided from F.Y. 2011 covered by temporal scope of Article 26 of the Amended Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Switzerland. Therefore, such information could be provided from 1-4-2011. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also placed on record Notification Dated 27 Switzerland Confederation for avoidance of double taxation. These would clearly show that these are applicable after Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 16. The contention of the ld. DR that the letter to the appellant referred to both the A.Ys i.e. 2008-09 and 2009 and, therefore, there is no error in the same. We do not find any force in this contention of the ld. DR. As mentioned elsewhere, since each A.Y is considered as a separate unit the Assessing Officer should have made out a case for A.Y 09 only and since the order framed u/s 142(2) of the Act also refers to A.Y 2009-10, then the same cannot be used 09. 17. The quarrel before us is as to whether the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) is passed within the period of limitation period prescribed under the Act or not. In our considered opinion, for coming to such a conclusion, we can examine whether the order passed u/s 142(2A) of the Act is in accordance with law or not. It is true that the order passed u/s 142(2A) of the Act is not appealable but when an assessment order is challenged, then the different aspects, which are integral to the process and ultimate completion of the amount can be challenged in appeal and since the ground before us is challenged for assessment being barred by limitation, we are well within our rights to consider all material aspects which were considered while framing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act.\" ordinate bench in one of the group cases of Bhushan Lal Sawhney v. Dy. CIT [2021] 127 taxmann.com 64/190 ITD 225 (Delhi -Trib) through his L/H wife Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney ITA Nos. 427 to 432/DEL/2017 & 434 to 439/DEL/2017 had the occasion to consider reference to Swiss authority and reply received by Swiss authority. It would be pertinent to refer to the said observation of the Co ordinate Bench which reads as under: rned Counsel for the Assessee also placed on record letter Dated 26-6-2015 issued by Swiss Competent Authority addressed to the Government of India in which it is specifically mentioned that information as required could be provided from F.Y. 2011-2012 as the prior years are not covered by temporal scope of Article 26 of the Amended Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Switzerland. Therefore, such information could be provided 2011. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also placed ecord Notification Dated 27-12-2011 between India and Switzerland Confederation for avoidance of double taxation. These would clearly show that these are applicable after Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta 12 ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 16. The contention of the ld. DR that the letter to the 09 and 2009-10 and, therefore, there is no error in the same. We do not find As mentioned elsewhere, since each A.Y is considered as a separate unit the Assessing Officer should have made out a case for A.Y 09 only and since the order framed u/s 142(2) of the 10, then the same cannot be used 17. The quarrel before us is as to whether the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) is passed within the period of limitation period prescribed under the Act or not. In our considered opinion, for coming to such a conclusion, we can r the order passed u/s 142(2A) of the Act is in accordance with law or not. It is true that the order passed u/s 142(2A) of the Act is not appealable but when an assessment order is challenged, then the different aspects, and ultimate completion of the amount can be challenged in appeal and since the ground before us is challenged for assessment being barred by limitation, we are well within our rights to consider all material aspects which were considered while framing the ordinate bench in one of the group cases of [2021] 127 taxmann.com through his L/H wife Smt. Sneh y ITA Nos. 427 to 432/DEL/2017 & 434 to 439/DEL/2017 had the occasion to consider reference to Swiss authority and reply received by Swiss authority. It would be pertinent to refer to the said observation of the Co- rned Counsel for the Assessee also placed on record 2015 issued by Swiss Competent Authority addressed to the Government of India in which it is specifically mentioned that information as required could be the prior years are not covered by temporal scope of Article 26 of the Amended Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Switzerland. Therefore, such information could be provided 2011. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also placed 2011 between India and Switzerland Confederation for avoidance of double taxation. These would clearly show that these are applicable after assessment years under appeals and as per information provided vide letter Dated 26 could be provided prior to 1 Authorities have not provided any information to Revenue Authorities in India about assessee's bank account with HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland ITA.Nos.427 to 432/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.434 to 439/Del./2017 Late Shri Bhushan Lal Sawhney through his L.R./Wife Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. for assessment years under appeals i.e., A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011 19. In light of the aforementioned discussion, we are of the considered vi department from Swiss authorities could not have been received by them for the period prior to 1 would be a futile exercise to wait for such information, and that too, by an invalid reference. opinion, the period of limitation could not be extended as claimed by the Revenue. The impugned assessments are clearly bared by limitation and deserve to be quashed. 20. Since we have quashed the assessments as barred by limitation, we do not find it necessary to dwell into the merits of the case. The common ground in the captioned appeals is allowed.” 9.2 Fact in the instant case are identical to the facts in the case of Shri Praveen Sawhney (supra) as the protocol in relatio exchange of information came into operation from the first day of April, 2011 whereas the relevant financial year corresponding to the assessment year 2007 therefore, said protocol relevant to the assessment year therefore, this reference which was sent by the AO in the year under consideration was invalid. In view of precedent in the case of Shri Praveen Sawhney (supra), the assessment order should have been passed w the end of the financial year in under section 148 of the Act was Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 assessment years under appeals and as per information provided vide letter Dated 26-6-2015 no such information could be provided prior to 1-4-2011. Therefore, Swiss Authorities have not provided any information to Revenue Authorities in India about assessee's bank account with HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland ITA.Nos.427 to 432/Del./2017 s.434 to 439/Del./2017 Late Shri Bhushan Lal Sawhney through his L.R./Wife Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. for assessment years under appeals i.e., A.Ys. 2007 to 2011-2012.\" 19. In light of the aforementioned discussion, we are of the considered view that the information called for by the department from Swiss authorities could not have been received by them for the period prior to 1-4-2011. Therefore, it would be a futile exercise to wait for such information, and that too, by an invalid reference. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the period of limitation could not be extended as claimed by the Revenue. The impugned assessments are clearly bared by limitation and deserve to be quashed. 20. Since we have quashed the assessments as barred by tation, we do not find it necessary to dwell into the merits of the case. The common ground in the captioned appeals is Fact in the instant case are identical to the facts in the case of Shri Praveen Sawhney (supra) as the protocol in relatio exchange of information came into operation from the first day of April, 2011 whereas the relevant financial year corresponding to the assessment year 2007-08 is from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 and therefore, said protocol was not in operation durin relevant to the assessment year therefore, this reference which was sent by the AO in the year under consideration was invalid. In view of precedent in the case of Shri Praveen Sawhney (supra), the order should have been passed within one year from the end of the financial year in under section 148 of the Act was Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta 13 ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 assessment years under appeals and as per information 2015 no such information 2011. Therefore, Swiss Authorities have not provided any information to Revenue Authorities in India about assessee's bank account with HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland ITA.Nos.427 to 432/Del./2017 s.434 to 439/Del./2017 Late Shri Bhushan Lal Sawhney through his L.R./Wife Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. for assessment years under appeals i.e., A.Ys. 19. In light of the aforementioned discussion, we are of the ew that the information called for by the department from Swiss authorities could not have been 2011. Therefore, it would be a futile exercise to wait for such information, and Therefore, in our considered opinion, the period of limitation could not be extended as claimed by the Revenue. The impugned assessments are clearly bared by limitation and deserve to be quashed. 20. Since we have quashed the assessments as barred by tation, we do not find it necessary to dwell into the merits of the case. The common ground in the captioned appeals is Fact in the instant case are identical to the facts in the case of Shri Praveen Sawhney (supra) as the protocol in relation to the exchange of information came into operation from the first day of April, 2011 whereas the relevant financial year corresponding to the 08 is from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 and operation during the period relevant to the assessment year therefore, this reference which was sent by the AO in the year under consideration was invalid. In view of precedent in the case of Shri Praveen Sawhney (supra), the re- ithin one year from the end of the financial year in under section 148 of the Act was served. Since in the case notice under section 148 of the act was served on 30/03/2012 and therefore the reassessment should have been completed on or before 31/03/2013 w order has been passed on 18/03/2014, which being beyond the period of limitation, the quashed. The ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed 9.1 The Ld. counsel for the assessee also r of the appeal and submitted that on the merit also Co Bench of the Tribunal in th Kalra in ITA No. 5330/Del/2016 simply on the basis of photocopy bank account without corroboration of the same. The relevant finding of the Tribunal “151. We may further point out that it is settled law that statement cannot be read in isolation without corroborative material. In the present case, we find that there is no evidence placed on record by the AO to corroborate the statement. Moreover, the Revenue itself is not clear whether the information pertains to the alleged bank account maintained wi evident from the paper book filed by the Revenue. No response has been received in response to the reference made to Swiss Competent Authority. No incriminating material whatsoever has been found during the course of t search. Under the facts and circumstances in our view, the provisions of Section 69 are not attracted to the assessee in the instant year. The AO has made the addition on the basis of suspicion pertains to the bank account. 152. Keeping in view, the ove that the addition made by the AO in the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007 direct the AO to delete Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 served. Since in the case notice under section 148 of the act was served on 30/03/2012 and therefore the reassessment should have been completed on or before 31/03/2013 whereas the assessment order has been passed on 18/03/2014, which being beyond the period of limitation, the entire reassessment proceedings stand The ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed The Ld. counsel for the assessee also referred to ground No. 3 of the appeal and submitted that on the merit also Co Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra in ITA No. 5330/Del/2016 that addition cannot be made simply on the basis of photocopy of document indicating balance in bank account without corroboration of the same. The relevant finding of the Tribunal (supra) is reproduced as under: 151. We may further point out that it is settled law that statement cannot be read in isolation without corroborative material. In the present case, we find that there is no evidence placed on record by the AO to corroborate the statement. Moreover, the Revenue itself is not clear whether the information pertains to the alleged bank account maintained with HSBC, Zurich or HSBC, Geneva as is evident from the paper book filed by the Revenue. No response has been received in response to the reference made to Swiss Competent Authority. No incriminating material whatsoever has been found during the course of t search. Under the facts and circumstances in our view, the provisions of Section 69 are not attracted to the assessee in the instant year. The AO has made the addition on the basis of suspicion pertains to the bank account. 152. Keeping in view, the overall facts, we are of the view that the addition made by the AO in the assessment years 07 and 2007-08 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the same.” Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta 14 ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 served. Since in the case notice under section 148 of the act was served on 30/03/2012 and therefore the reassessment should have hereas the assessment order has been passed on 18/03/2014, which being beyond the entire reassessment proceedings stand The ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed eferred to ground No. 3 of the appeal and submitted that on the merit also Co-ordinate ACIT v. Sh. Parminder Singh that addition cannot be made indicating balance in bank account without corroboration of the same. The relevant is reproduced as under: 151. We may further point out that it is settled law that statement cannot be read in isolation without any corroborative material. In the present case, we find that there is no evidence placed on record by the AO to corroborate the statement. Moreover, the Revenue itself is not clear whether the information pertains to the alleged bank account th HSBC, Zurich or HSBC, Geneva as is evident from the paper book filed by the Revenue. No response has been received in response to the reference made to Swiss Competent Authority. No incriminating material whatsoever has been found during the course of the search. Under the facts and circumstances in our view, the provisions of Section 69 are not attracted to the assessee in the instant year. The AO has made the addition on the basis rall facts, we are of the view that the addition made by the AO in the assessment years 08 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we 9.2 In the instant case also, addition has been made on the basis of photocopy of a document commonly known as a base note of bank account with HSBC Geneva. The said base note was obtained by a nonofficial route by the French government and then same has been forwarded to the Indian government. But the existence of said bank account has not been confirmed by the HSBC, Geneva. Therefore following the finding of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal (supra), no addition can be sustained on merit also. Since we have already quashed the reassessment proceedings on the ground of limitation in passing assessment order on merit is rendered merely academic. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 15/04/2025 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// Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 In the instant case also, addition has been made on the basis py of a document commonly known as a base note of bank account with HSBC Geneva. The said base note was obtained by a nonofficial route by the French government and then same has been forwarded to the Indian government. But the existence of said nt has not been confirmed by the HSBC, Geneva. Therefore following the finding of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal (supra), no addition can be sustained on merit also. Since we have already quashed the reassessment proceedings on tion in passing assessment order on merit is rendered merely academic. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. nounced in the open Court on 15/04/2025. Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Kalpana Dilip Mehta as Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta 15 ITA No. 679/MUM/2025 In the instant case also, addition has been made on the basis py of a document commonly known as a base note of bank account with HSBC Geneva. The said base note was obtained by a nonofficial route by the French government and then same has been forwarded to the Indian government. But the existence of said nt has not been confirmed by the HSBC, Geneva. Therefore following the finding of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal (supra), no addition can be sustained on merit also. Since we have already quashed the reassessment proceedings on tion in passing assessment order, the addition In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. /04/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "