M/S. NAM TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. DCIT-14(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3108/MUM/2025

AI Insights

M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld the reassessment order and additions made under sections 143(3) read with 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act. The reassessment was initiated on the grounds that income had escaped assessment. The tribunal, after considering the procedural lapses in handling the objections to the reassessment, quashed the reassessment order and all subsequent proceedings, citing non-compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards as established by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848835 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, Amish Anantrai Modi v. DCIT, KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Foset (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Prashanth Sunil Kumar Bohra vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH KAMAT
• Assessee Lawyers: TARANG MEHTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance; Procedural lapse
• Section: 148; 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 3108/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 4, Neelkanth Shopping Arcade, Opp. Fine Arts Hall, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Vs. ACIT-14(2)(2), Room No. 432, 4th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AAFCA 9204 L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Tarang Mehta Revenue by : Mr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 25/02/2026 Date of pronouncement : 27/03/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds: Printed from counselvise.com 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order, which is invalid and bad law. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act which is illegal and bad in law. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding assessment under section 148 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.3,55,78,559/ 5. On the facts and circumstances of CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.8,00,00,000/ 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessment order passed is in natural justice. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of dealing in network equipment, information technology enabled services (ITES) and facility management series and op income on 27.09.2012 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Income recording reasons to b Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2019. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 29.04.2019, thereafter notices u/s 143(2) and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued on 29.10.2019. In response, the assessee filed details thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 02.12.2019. The assessee filed reply on 09.12.2019. The Assessing Officer rejected M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ITA That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order, which is invalid and bad That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act which is illegal and bad in law. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding there assessment under section 148 of the Act. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.3,55,78,559/-under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.8,00,00,000/-under Section 69A of the Act. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessment order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of dealing in network equipment, information technology enabled services (ITES) and facility management series and operations. The assessee filed its return of income on 27.09.2012 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and after recording reasons to believe that income escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2019. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 29.04.2019, thereafter notices u/s 143(2) and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were .2019. In response, the assessee filed details thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 02.12.2019. The assessee filed reply on 09.12.2019. The Assessing Officer rejected M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 3108/MUM/2025 That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order, which is invalid and bad in That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, there-opening of That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition of under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the violation of principles of Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of dealing in network equipment, information technology enabled services (ITES) and facility erations. The assessee filed its return of income on 27.09.2012 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee was reopened tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and after elieve that income escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2019. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 29.04.2019, thereafter notices u/s 143(2) and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were .2019. In response, the assessee filed details thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 02.12.2019. The assessee filed reply on 09.12.2019. The Assessing Officer rejected Printed from counselvise.com the contention of the assessee and made addition for the amount of Rs.355,78,559/- as interest payment against the loan given to other parties and trade receivables. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.8 crores for high value on non 2.1 The assessee further filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but due to non-compliance of the various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 3. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the matter was restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication the appeal of the assessee after affording adequat thereof the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the ground challenging the validity of the reassessment as well as grounds on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee both on the legal as well as merit grounds. 4. Aggrieved the assessee is before us by way of raising the grounds as reproduced above. 5. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the ground No. 1 to 3 of the appeal and submitted that in the case, the assessee raised primary objection agains before the Assessing Officer but same were not disposed off by the Assessing Officer, which is in violation of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC). M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ITA the contention of the assessee and made addition for the amount of as interest payment against the loan given to other parties and trade receivables. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.8 crores for high value on non-cash transactions. The assessee further filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but due compliance of the various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) appeal of the assessee was dismissed. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the matter was restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication the appeal of the assessee after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. In compliance thereof the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the ground challenging the validity of the reassessment as well as grounds on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee both on the legal as well Aggrieved the assessee is before us by way of raising the grounds as reproduced above. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the ground No. 1 to 3 of the appeal and submitted that in the case, the assessee raised primary objection against the reassessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer but same were not disposed off by the Assessing Officer, which is in violation of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) TR 19 (SC). M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 3108/MUM/2025 the contention of the assessee and made addition for the amount of as interest payment against the loan given to other parties and trade receivables. The Assessing Officer also made cash transactions. The assessee further filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but due compliance of the various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) On further appeal before the Tribunal, the matter was restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication the appeal of the assessee e opportunity of being heard. In compliance thereof the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the ground challenging the validity of the reassessment as well as grounds on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee both on the legal as well Aggrieved the assessee is before us by way of raising the The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the ground No. 1 to 3 of the appeal and submitted that in the case, the assessee t the reassessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer but same were not disposed off by the Assessing Officer, which is in violation of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Printed from counselvise.com 5.1 The Ld. counsel further relied on the decision of the Co ordinate Bench in the case of No. 6282/Mum/2025 for assessment year 2013 that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained in law. 6. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the legal issue challenged by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a letter dated 19.11.2019, which is a copy of the objection to reassessment proceedings initiated against t assessee. The assessee is also filed a snapshot of the e According to which this letter was filed on 20.11.2019 before the Assessing Officer through e has filed a detailed date the e-filing portal which shows that this objection was not disposed off by the Assessing Officer. During the course of the hearing, the Ld. DR was asked to file copy of any order disposing of such objection of the assessee. The Depa failed in producing so and therefore, the Ld. DR was given liberty to file such objection within 15 days of the hearing but till the date of finalizing this order no such report containing any order passed disposing objection b such circumstances, we infer that no such order disposing objection much less speaking order was passed by the Assessing Officer. M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ITA The Ld. counsel further relied on the decision of the Co ordinate Bench in the case of Amish Anantrai Modi v. DCIT in ITA No. 6282/Mum/2025 for assessment year 2013-14 and submitted that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained in law. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the legal issue challenged by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a letter dated 19.11.2019, which is a copy of the objection to reassessment proceedings initiated against t assessee. The assessee is also filed a snapshot of the e According to which this letter was filed on 20.11.2019 before the Assessing Officer through e-filing. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a detailed date-wise chart of the proceedings available on filing portal which shows that this objection was not disposed off by the Assessing Officer. During the course of the hearing, the Ld. DR was asked to file copy of any order disposing of such objection of the assessee. The Departmental Representative (DR) failed in producing so and therefore, the Ld. DR was given liberty to file such objection within 15 days of the hearing but till the date of finalizing this order no such report containing any order passed disposing objection by the Assessing Officer is filed before us. In such circumstances, we infer that no such order disposing objection much less speaking order was passed by the Assessing M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA No. 3108/MUM/2025 The Ld. counsel further relied on the decision of the Co- Amish Anantrai Modi v. DCIT in ITA 14 and submitted that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained in law. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the legal issue challenged by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a letter dated 19.11.2019, which is a copy of the objection to reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee. The assessee is also filed a snapshot of the e-filing portal. According to which this letter was filed on 20.11.2019 before the filing. The Ld. counsel for the assessee oceedings available on filing portal which shows that this objection was not disposed off by the Assessing Officer. During the course of the hearing, the Ld. DR was asked to file copy of any order disposing of such rtmental Representative (DR) failed in producing so and therefore, the Ld. DR was given liberty to file such objection within 15 days of the hearing but till the date of finalizing this order no such report containing any order passed y the Assessing Officer is filed before us. In such circumstances, we infer that no such order disposing objection much less speaking order was passed by the Assessing Printed from counselvise.com 6.1 Regarding violation of the ratio of the decision in the case of GKN Dirveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Co the Tribunal in the case of Amish Anantrai Modi (supra)has passed a detailed order after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts including the jurisdic High Court. For ready reference, the relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under: “11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and examined the legal position governing the field. At the very threshold, it mus down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) is not a mere administrative formality but a jurisdictional discipline, intended to balance the power of the Revenue to reopen conclud right of the assessee to challenge such reopening at the inception itself. The Supreme Court has unequivocally held that upon supply of reasons, the assessee is entitled to file objections and the Assessing Officer is a speaking order before proceeding further with the assessment. This procedural safeguard is not ornamental, but foundational to the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147. 12. In the pre from the record but stands expressly admitted by the Assessing Officer himself in his remand report that the objections filed by the assessee were not disposed of prior to completion of the reassessment. This is not a case where objections were cursorily dealt with or inadequately reasoned; rather, it is a case where the statutorily mandated step was completely bypassed. Such a lapse, in our considered view, goes to the very root of the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and is not capable of being condoned as a mere procedural irregularity. 13. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), while dealing with an identical issue, has authoritatively laid down that once an assessment order is found to be without jurisdiction for failure to follow the mandate of GKN Driveshafts, there remains no question of restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order. The Hon'ble Court ha categorically ruled that an order passed without complying with the M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ITA Regarding violation of the ratio of the decision in the case of Dirveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Amish Anantrai Modi (supra)has passed a detailed order after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts including the jurisdic High Court. For ready reference, the relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under: “11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and examined the legal position governing the field. At the very threshold, it must be reiterated that the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) is not a mere administrative formality but a jurisdictional discipline, intended to balance the power of the Revenue to reopen concluded assessments with the corresponding right of the assessee to challenge such reopening at the inception itself. The Supreme Court has unequivocally held that upon supply of reasons, the assessee is entitled to file objections and the Assessing Officer is mandatorily required to dispose of the same by a speaking order before proceeding further with the assessment. This procedural safeguard is not ornamental, but foundational to the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147. 12. In the present case, the factual position is not merely borne out from the record but stands expressly admitted by the Assessing Officer himself in his remand report that the objections filed by the assessee were not disposed of prior to completion of the nt. This is not a case where objections were cursorily dealt with or inadequately reasoned; rather, it is a case where the statutorily mandated step was completely bypassed. Such a lapse, in our considered view, goes to the very root of the assumption of urisdiction under section 147 of the Act and is not capable of being condoned as a mere procedural irregularity. 13. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), while dealing with an identical issue, has authoritatively n that once an assessment order is found to be without jurisdiction for failure to follow the mandate of GKN Driveshafts, there remains no question of restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order. The Hon'ble Court ha categorically ruled that an order passed without complying with the M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 5 ITA No. 3108/MUM/2025 Regarding violation of the ratio of the decision in the case of ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Amish Anantrai Modi (supra)has passed a detailed order after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court. For ready reference, the relevant part of the decision is “11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and examined the legal position governing the field. At t be reiterated that the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) is not a mere administrative formality but a jurisdictional discipline, intended to balance the power of the ed assessments with the corresponding right of the assessee to challenge such reopening at the inception itself. The Supreme Court has unequivocally held that upon supply of reasons, the assessee is entitled to file objections and the mandatorily required to dispose of the same by a speaking order before proceeding further with the assessment. This procedural safeguard is not ornamental, but foundational to the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147. sent case, the factual position is not merely borne out from the record but stands expressly admitted by the Assessing Officer himself in his remand report that the objections filed by the assessee were not disposed of prior to completion of the nt. This is not a case where objections were cursorily dealt with or inadequately reasoned; rather, it is a case where the statutorily mandated step was completely bypassed. Such a lapse, in our considered view, goes to the very root of the assumption of urisdiction under section 147 of the Act and is not capable of being 13. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), while dealing with an identical issue, has authoritatively n that once an assessment order is found to be without jurisdiction for failure to follow the mandate of GKN Driveshafts, there remains no question of restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order. The Hon'ble Court has categorically ruled that an order passed without complying with the Printed from counselvise.com jurisdictional precondition cannot be resuscitated by remand, for to do so would, in effect, legitimise an order which is void at inception. The ratio emanating from the said judgment is procedure prescribed in GKN Driveshafts does not merely vitiate the assessment procedurally, but strikes at the very authority of the Assessing Officer to proceed further. 14. The binding principle flowing from KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. i where the assumption of jurisdiction itself is flawed due to non compliance with the mandatory preconditions laid down by the Supreme Court, the only consequence in law is annulment of the proceedings, and not restoration. The Hon'ble High Court has expressly cautioned that permitting remand in such cases would confer an unwarranted licence upon the Assessing Officer to pass jurisdictionally infirm orders with impunity, secure in the knowledge that the only consequence would be a remand for curing de thereby leading to needless harassment of the assessee and revival of stale matters. 15. We further find that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Foset (India) Pvt. Ltd. has taken the same principle to its logical conclusion by holding that non procedural lapse, but a jurisdictional defect which vitiates the reassessment proceedings in their entirety. The Hon'ble High Court has clearly ruled that the failure to decide objections deprives the Assessing Officer o subsequent reassessment order void ab initio. This principle, in our considered view, squarely governs the controversy before us. 16. The attempt of the Revenue to rely upon the decision in Home Finders Housing Ltd. (supra) does not advance its case, inasmuch as the said decision stands eclipsed by the subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which is binding upon us. Moreover, t Kumar Bohra vs. ITO [174 taxmann.com 907], following KSS Petron, has reiterated that where objections are not disposed of prior to completion of reassessment, the only legally sustainable course is to quash the proceedings, and not to remand them. 17. In the light of the above judicial position, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention that the matter can be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for curing the defect. Once the assumption of jurisdiction itself is found to be vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court and reinforced by the jurisdictional High Court, the superstructure erected thereon must necessarily fall. To hold M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ITA jurisdictional precondition cannot be resuscitated by remand, for to do so would, in effect, legitimise an order which is void at inception. The ratio emanating from the said judgment is that violation of the procedure prescribed in GKN Driveshafts does not merely vitiate the assessment procedurally, but strikes at the very authority of the Assessing Officer to proceed further. 14. The binding principle flowing from KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. i where the assumption of jurisdiction itself is flawed due to non compliance with the mandatory preconditions laid down by the Supreme Court, the only consequence in law is annulment of the proceedings, and not restoration. The Hon'ble High Court has expressly cautioned that permitting remand in such cases would confer an unwarranted licence upon the Assessing Officer to pass jurisdictionally infirm orders with impunity, secure in the knowledge that the only consequence would be a remand for curing de thereby leading to needless harassment of the assessee and revival of stale matters. 15. We further find that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Foset (India) Pvt. Ltd. has taken the same principle to its logical conclusion by holding that non-disposal of objections is not a curable procedural lapse, but a jurisdictional defect which vitiates the reassessment proceedings in their entirety. The Hon'ble High Court has clearly ruled that the failure to decide objections deprives the Assessing Officer of the authority to proceed further and renders the subsequent reassessment order void ab initio. This principle, in our considered view, squarely governs the controversy before us. 16. The attempt of the Revenue to rely upon the decision in Home using Ltd. (supra) does not advance its case, inasmuch as the said decision stands eclipsed by the subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which is binding upon us. Moreover, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Prashanth Sunil Kumar Bohra vs. ITO [174 taxmann.com 907], following KSS Petron, has reiterated that where objections are not disposed of prior to completion of reassessment, the only legally sustainable course is to h the proceedings, and not to remand them. 17. In the light of the above judicial position, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention that the matter can be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for curing the defect. sumption of jurisdiction itself is found to be vitiated for compliance with the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court and reinforced by the jurisdictional High Court, the superstructure erected thereon must necessarily fall. To hold M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 6 ITA No. 3108/MUM/2025 jurisdictional precondition cannot be resuscitated by remand, for to do so would, in effect, legitimise an order which is void at inception. that violation of the procedure prescribed in GKN Driveshafts does not merely vitiate the assessment procedurally, but strikes at the very authority of the 14. The binding principle flowing from KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. is that where the assumption of jurisdiction itself is flawed due to non- compliance with the mandatory preconditions laid down by the Supreme Court, the only consequence in law is annulment of the proceedings, and not restoration. The Hon'ble High Court has expressly cautioned that permitting remand in such cases would confer an unwarranted licence upon the Assessing Officer to pass jurisdictionally infirm orders with impunity, secure in the knowledge that the only consequence would be a remand for curing defects, thereby leading to needless harassment of the assessee and revival 15. We further find that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Foset (India) Pvt. Ltd. has taken the same principle to its logical conclusion osal of objections is not a curable procedural lapse, but a jurisdictional defect which vitiates the reassessment proceedings in their entirety. The Hon'ble High Court has clearly ruled that the failure to decide objections deprives the f the authority to proceed further and renders the subsequent reassessment order void ab initio. This principle, in our considered view, squarely governs the controversy before us. 16. The attempt of the Revenue to rely upon the decision in Home using Ltd. (supra) does not advance its case, inasmuch as the said decision stands eclipsed by the subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which is binding upon he Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Prashanth Sunil Kumar Bohra vs. ITO [174 taxmann.com 907], following KSS Petron, has reiterated that where objections are not disposed of prior to completion of reassessment, the only legally sustainable course is to 17. In the light of the above judicial position, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention that the matter can be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for curing the defect. sumption of jurisdiction itself is found to be vitiated for compliance with the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court and reinforced by the jurisdictional High Court, the superstructure erected thereon must necessarily fall. To hold Printed from counselvise.com otherwise would be to dilute the discipline of jurisdictional control and erode a valuable procedural safeguard conferred upon the assessee. 18. Viewed thus, and respectfully following the binding ratio of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. a persuasive reasoning of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Foset (India) Pvt. Ltd., we hold that the reassessment order dated 23.06.2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed objections filed by the assessee against reopening were admittedly not disposed of prior to completion of assessment, in clear violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. 19. Consequently, the notice and all proceedings subsequent thereto are hereby quashed. In view of this jurisdictional annulment, we do not deem it necessary to adjudicate upon the merits of the additions made in the reassessment order.” 6.2 Respectfully following the above decision, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in the case of the assessee reassessment proceedings thereof are quashed. 6.3 Since we have already quashed the reassessment proceedings, adjudicating the ground and accordingly we are not adjudicating upon the same at this stage. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ITA ise would be to dilute the discipline of jurisdictional control and erode a valuable procedural safeguard conferred upon the 18. Viewed thus, and respectfully following the binding ratio of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. a persuasive reasoning of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Foset (India) Pvt. Ltd., we hold that the reassessment order dated 23.06.2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed objections filed by the assessee against reopening were admittedly not disposed of prior to completion of assessment, in clear violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. 19. Consequently, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and all proceedings subsequent thereto are hereby quashed. In view of this jurisdictional annulment, we do not deem it necessary to adjudicate upon the merits of the additions made in the reassessment order.” tfully following the above decision, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in the case of the assessee and also reassessment proceedings thereof are quashed. Since we have already quashed the reassessment proceedings, adjudicating the grounds on merit are rendered merely academic and accordingly we are not adjudicating upon the same at this In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ounced in the open Court on 27/03/2026. Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 7 ITA No. 3108/MUM/2025 ise would be to dilute the discipline of jurisdictional control and erode a valuable procedural safeguard conferred upon the 18. Viewed thus, and respectfully following the binding ratio of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. and the persuasive reasoning of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Foset (India) Pvt. Ltd., we hold that the reassessment order dated 23.06.2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed, as the objections filed by the assessee against reopening were admittedly not disposed of prior to completion of assessment, in clear violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN issued under section 148 of the Act and all proceedings subsequent thereto are hereby quashed. In view of this jurisdictional annulment, we do not deem it necessary to adjudicate upon the merits of the additions made in the tfully following the above decision, the notice issued also subsequent Since we have already quashed the reassessment proceedings, s on merit are rendered merely academic and accordingly we are not adjudicating upon the same at this In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. /03/2026. Sd/- PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Dated: 27/03/2026 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ITA Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Nam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 8 ITA No. 3108/MUM/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "