MITA MADHUKAR SHETH,MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN

ITA 3530/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mita Madhukar Sheth against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 48, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention was regarding the jurisdiction and the validity of the assessment order passed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search operation. The Tribunal considered the procedural aspects of the assessment, including the recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer and the timing of the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction under section 153C was recorded on 14th October 2020, and since the financial year in which this satisfaction was recorded ended on 31.03.2021, the permissible assessment years would be A.Y. 2015-16 to 2020-21. Consequently, the assessment year 2014-15 fell outside this block, leading to the conclusion that the assessment was time-barred.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840231 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Calcutta Knitwear, Sinhgad Technical Education Society, National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jasjit Singh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH JOSHI
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 144; 132; 153A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.3530/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mita Madhukar Sheth A 1903, Kanakia Aroha, Dattapada Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400066 Vs. Deputy Commissioner IT, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai CGO Complex, New Marine lines, Mumbai-400020 PAN NO- ANXPS1978H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi Department by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 27/02/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 15th February, 2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 48, Mumbai [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2014-15 raising various grounds challenging the validity of jurisdiction, recording of satisfaction under section 153C, reference to special audit under section 142(2A), additions beyond incriminating material, and the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in Printed from counselvise.com remanding the matter instead of annulling the assessment. The said grounds are reproduced as under “1. The assessment jurisdiction over the assessee. Order passed u/s 127 is illega, without DIN and by non jurisdictional PCIT etc 2. The assessment is null and void ab initio as satisfaction recorded by LAO of searched person is belated and without DIN and therefore non est in view of Hon'ble SC decision in case of Calcutta Knitwear 3. The assessment isnull and void ab initio as the satisfaction recorded by AO of assessee is not in accordance with binding decision of jur Bombay in case of Sinhgad Technical 4. The reference to special audit u/s 142(2A) is also illegal as the case of the assessee did not satisfy the condi 5. Additions on issues not covered b vires and liable to be deleted. 6. The Id CIT(A) should have annulled the order is LAO” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 20 days in was explained that though the appeal fee was paid on 20th February, 2025 and Form No. 36 was uploaded on 21st February, 2025, the verification could not be completed as the husband of the assessee matters—fell seriously ill and was hospitalized. He unfortunately expired on 9th April, 2025. Owing to these unforeseen and tragic circumstances, the appeal could not be effectively pursued within time. 2.1 Having considered the explanation and the mate record, we are satisfied that the delay was occasioned by sufficient and bona fide cause. The explanation is neither Mita Madhukar Sheth ITA remanding the matter instead of annulling the assessment. The said grounds are reproduced as under : “1. The assessment order is null and void ab initio because the LAO had no jurisdiction over the assessee. Order passed u/s 127 is illega, without DIN and by non jurisdictional PCIT etc 2. The assessment is null and void ab initio as satisfaction recorded by LAO of person is belated and without DIN and therefore non est in view of Hon'ble SC decision in case of Calcutta Knitwear 3. The assessment isnull and void ab initio as the satisfaction recorded by AO of assessee is not in accordance with binding decision of jur Bombay in case of Sinhgad Technical Education society. 4. The reference to special audit u/s 142(2A) is also illegal as the case of the assessee did not satisfy the conditions specifed in that section. 5. Additions on issues not covered by incriminating seized material are ultra liable to be deleted. 6. The Id CIT(A) should have annulled the order isntead of sending it back to At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal. It was explained that though the appeal fee was paid on 20th February, 2025 and Form No. 36 was uploaded on 21st February, 2025, the verification could not be completed as the husband of the assessee—who exclusively handled her t fell seriously ill and was hospitalized. He unfortunately expired on 9th April, 2025. Owing to these unforeseen and tragic circumstances, the appeal could not be effectively pursued within Having considered the explanation and the mate record, we are satisfied that the delay was occasioned by sufficient and bona fide cause. The explanation is neither Mita Madhukar Sheth 2 No. 3530/MUM/2025 remanding the matter instead of annulling the assessment. The order is null and void ab initio because the LAO had no jurisdiction over the assessee. Order passed u/s 127 is illega, without DIN and 2. The assessment is null and void ab initio as satisfaction recorded by LAO of person is belated and without DIN and therefore non est in view of 3. The assessment isnull and void ab initio as the satisfaction recorded by AO of assessee is not in accordance with binding decision of jurisdictional HC of 4. The reference to special audit u/s 142(2A) is also illegal as the case of the tions specifed in that section. y incriminating seized material are ultra ntead of sending it back to At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted filing the present appeal. It was explained that though the appeal fee was paid on 20th February, 2025 and Form No. 36 was uploaded on 21st February, 2025, the verification could not be completed as the who exclusively handled her tax fell seriously ill and was hospitalized. He unfortunately expired on 9th April, 2025. Owing to these unforeseen and tragic circumstances, the appeal could not be effectively pursued within Having considered the explanation and the material on record, we are satisfied that the delay was occasioned by sufficient and bona fide cause. The explanation is neither Printed from counselvise.com perfunctory nor lacking in credibility. In the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 20 days is condoned. The appeal is accordingly admitted for adjudication. 3. Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground challenging the limitation in passing the order u/s 153 Act in the case of the assessee. The said additional ground is reproduced as under: “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is time barred as per the provision of the Act, therefore, the impugned to be quash.” 3.1 The additional ground being purely legal in nature, going to the root of jurisdiction, and not requiring investigation into fresh facts, is admitted in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 383). 4. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee addressing the additional ground submitted that a search was conducted in the case of OPG Group on 15.11.2017. During the course of search at the residence of Shri Madhukar C. Seth, certain digital material was seized. The Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction under section 153C on 14th October, 2020, stating that the seized digital data contained books of account and financial details pertaining to the assessee, Smt. Mita Madhukar Seth. Mita Madhukar Sheth ITA perfunctory nor lacking in credibility. In the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 20 days is condoned. The appeal ordingly admitted for adjudication. Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground challenging the limitation in passing the order u/s 153 Act in the case of the assessee. The said additional ground is reproduced as under: the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is time barred as per the provision of the Act, therefore, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and required The additional ground being purely legal in nature, going to the root of jurisdiction, and not requiring investigation into fresh facts, is admitted in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee addressing the additional ground submitted that a search was conducted in the case of OPG Group on 15.11.2017. During the course of search at the residence of Shri Madhukar C. Seth, certain digital erial was seized. The Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction under section 153C on 14th October, 2020, stating that the seized digital data contained books of account and financial details pertaining to the assessee, Smt. Mita Madhukar Seth. Mita Madhukar Sheth 3 No. 3530/MUM/2025 perfunctory nor lacking in credibility. In the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 20 days is condoned. The appeal Before us, the assessee has also raised an additional ground challenging the limitation in passing the order u/s 153C of the Act in the case of the assessee. The said additional ground is the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is time barred as per the provision of assessment order is bad in law and required The additional ground being purely legal in nature, going to the root of jurisdiction, and not requiring investigation into fresh facts, is admitted in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee addressing the additional ground submitted that a search was conducted in the case of OPG Group on 15.11.2017. During the course of search at the residence of Shri Madhukar C. Seth, certain digital erial was seized. The Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction under section 153C on 14th October, 2020, stating that the seized digital data contained books of account and financial details pertaining to the assessee, Smt. Mita Madhukar Seth. Printed from counselvise.com 4.1 It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer of the searched person and that of the assessee being the same, there was no physical transfer of seized material. Therefore, the date of recording of satisfaction i.e. 14.10.2020 must be treated as the date of transfer for the purposes of computing limitation. 4.2 Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income taxmann.com 90 (SC), it was contended that the block of six assessment years under section the end of the financial year in which the seized material is handed over (or deemed to be handed over) to the Assessing Officer of the other person. 4.3 On this basis, it was argued that the six assessment years would run from A.Y. 2015 15 falls outside this block, the impugned assessment is barred by limitation. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. There is no dispute that the satisfaction under section 153C was recorded on 14th October, 2020. The satisfaction note, as reproduced in the assessment records, clearly records that digital data seized during the search contained books of account of the assessee and accordingly proceedings under section 153C were initiated. Mita Madhukar Sheth ITA rther submitted that the Assessing Officer of the searched person and that of the assessee being the same, there was no physical transfer of seized material. Therefore, the date of recording of satisfaction i.e. 14.10.2020 must be treated as the ansfer for the purposes of computing limitation. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jasjit Singh taxmann.com 90 (SC), it was contended that the block of six assessment years under section 153C has to be reckoned from the end of the financial year in which the seized material is handed over (or deemed to be handed over) to the Assessing Officer of the other person. On this basis, it was argued that the six assessment years A.Y. 2015–16 to A.Y. 2021–22. Since A.Y. 2014 15 falls outside this block, the impugned assessment is barred by We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. There is no dispute that the n under section 153C was recorded on 14th October, 2020. The satisfaction note, as reproduced in the assessment records, clearly records that digital data seized during the search contained books of account of the assessee and accordingly section 153C were initiated. Mita Madhukar Sheth 4 No. 3530/MUM/2025 rther submitted that the Assessing Officer of the searched person and that of the assessee being the same, there was no physical transfer of seized material. Therefore, the date of recording of satisfaction i.e. 14.10.2020 must be treated as the ansfer for the purposes of computing limitation. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2023) 155 taxmann.com 90 (SC), it was contended that the block of six 153C has to be reckoned from the end of the financial year in which the seized material is handed over (or deemed to be handed over) to the Assessing On this basis, it was argued that the six assessment years 22. Since A.Y. 2014– 15 falls outside this block, the impugned assessment is barred by We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. There is no dispute that the n under section 153C was recorded on 14th October, 2020. The satisfaction note, as reproduced in the assessment records, clearly records that digital data seized during the search contained books of account of the assessee and accordingly Printed from counselvise.com 5.1 As far as six assessment years to be assessed u/s 153A of the Act is concerned, said six assessment years are taken up from the end of the financial year in which search is conducted. But as far as proceeding u/s 153C of t legal position governing computation of limitation under section 153C now stands authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Jasjit Singh has unequivocally held that for the relevant six assessment years are to be reckoned from the end of the financial year in which the seized material is handed over to the Assessing Officer of the other person. The Hon’ble Court rejected the contention that the p date of search, observing that such an interpretation would cause undue prejudice and lead to harsh and unintended consequences. The principle that emerges is that jurisdiction under section 153C crystallizes only upon recor satisfaction and handing over of the material. The limitation must, therefore, be computed with reference to that event. T relevant finding of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasjit Singh (supra.) is reproduced “10. This Court is and without merit. It is quite plausible that without the kind of interpretation which SSP Aviation party, under section 132 materials belonging to the third party, to the c date would virtually \"relate b (to the date of the seizure), the prejudice caused to th be drawn into proceedings as it were unwittingly concern with it at all Mita Madhukar Sheth ITA As far as six assessment years to be assessed u/s 153A of the Act is concerned, said six assessment years are taken up from the end of the financial year in which search is conducted. But as far as proceeding u/s 153C of the Act is concerned, legal position governing computation of limitation under section 153C now stands authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme CIT v. Jasjit Singh (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has unequivocally held that for the purposes of section 153C, the relevant six assessment years are to be reckoned from the end of the financial year in which the seized material is handed over to the Assessing Officer of the other person. The Hon’ble Court rejected the contention that the period should relate back to the date of search, observing that such an interpretation would cause undue prejudice and lead to harsh and unintended consequences. The principle that emerges is that jurisdiction under section 153C crystallizes only upon recor satisfaction and handing over of the material. The limitation must, therefore, be computed with reference to that event. T Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasjit is reproduced as under: “10. This Court is of the opinion that the revenue’s argument is insubstantial and without merit. It is quite plausible that without the kind of interpretation which SSP Aviation adopted, the A.O, seized of the materia party, under section 132-would take his own time to forwar materials belonging to the third party, to the concerned A.O. In that event if the date would virtually \"relate back\" as is sought to be contended to the date of the seizure), the prejudice caused to the third party, who would be drawn into proceedings as it were unwittingly (and in many cases have no with it at all), is dis-proportionate. For instance, if the p Mita Madhukar Sheth 5 No. 3530/MUM/2025 As far as six assessment years to be assessed u/s 153A of the Act is concerned, said six assessment years are taken up from the end of the financial year in which search is conducted. he Act is concerned, the legal position governing computation of limitation under section 153C now stands authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme n’ble Supreme Court purposes of section 153C, the relevant six assessment years are to be reckoned from the end of the financial year in which the seized material is handed over to the Assessing Officer of the other person. The Hon’ble Court eriod should relate back to the date of search, observing that such an interpretation would cause undue prejudice and lead to harsh and unintended consequences. The principle that emerges is that jurisdiction under section 153C crystallizes only upon recording of satisfaction and handing over of the material. The limitation must, therefore, be computed with reference to that event. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasjit argument is insubstantial and without merit. It is quite plausible that without the kind of interpretation , the A.O, seized of the materials - of the search to forward the papers and . In that event if the ntended by the revenue, e third party, who would in many cases have no tionate. For instance, if the papers are in Printed from counselvise.com fact assigned under Section assessee's prejudice is writ large as it would have to virtually preserve the records for at latest 10 years which is not the requirement in law. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. On the other hand, a plain r this Court adopts.” 5.2 Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that six years or the ten years, wherever applicable, assessment has to be reckoned from the date on which material relevant to the assessee has been transferred to the Assessing Officer by the Assessing Officer of the searched person 5.3 In the instant case, the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the assessee being same, there was no requiremen the transfer of the material and, therefore, it is deemed that said material was transferred on the date of recording satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act. Since the satisfaction u/s 153C recorded on 14 October, 2020, a copy of which 1 Name of the group if any, searched 2 Name of the assessee in whose case assets (money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing) or papers (books of accounts or documents) seized u/s 132/ requisitioned u/s 132A. 3 PAN of searched assessee 4 Name and address of the person to whom seized assets/ papers/documents/information as in(2) above belong. 5 PAN of other person Mita Madhukar Sheth ITA fact assigned under Section 153-C after a period of four years, the third assessee's prejudice is writ large as it would have to virtually preserve the for at latest 10 years which is not the requirement in law. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. On the a plain reading of section 153-C supports the inter this Court adopts.” Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that six years or years, wherever applicable, to be assessed for search assessment has to be reckoned from the date on which material relevant to the assessee has been transferred to the Assessing Officer by the Assessing Officer of the searched person In the instant case, the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the assessee being same, there was no requiremen the transfer of the material and, therefore, it is deemed that said was transferred on the date of recording satisfaction u/s ince the satisfaction u/s 153C recorded on 14 , a copy of which is reproduced as under: Name of the group if any, searched OPG Group (Madhukar C Seth group) Name of the assessee in whose case assets (money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing) or papers (books of accounts or documents) seized u/s 132/ u/s 132A. M/s OPG Securities Pvt Ltd and Sh. Sanjay Gupta Address: 4/10, OPG House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002 PAN of searched assessee AAACO1081C Name and address of the person to whom seized assets/ papers/documents/information as belong. Ms. Mita Madhukar Seth A/1901-04, Aroha Tower, Dattapada Road, Borivali (East) Mumbai PAN of other person ANXPS1978H Mita Madhukar Sheth 6 No. 3530/MUM/2025 er a period of four years, the third party assessee's prejudice is writ large as it would have to virtually preserve the for at latest 10 years which is not the requirement in law. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. On the s the interpretation which Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that six years or to be assessed for search assessment has to be reckoned from the date on which the material relevant to the assessee has been transferred to the Assessing Officer by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the assessee being same, there was no requirement of the transfer of the material and, therefore, it is deemed that said was transferred on the date of recording satisfaction u/s ince the satisfaction u/s 153C recorded on 14th der: OPG Group (Madhukar C Seth M/s OPG Securities Pvt Ltd and Sh. Sanjay Gupta Address: 4/10, OPG House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi- Ms. Mita Madhukar Seth 04, Aroha Tower, Dattapada Road, Borivali Printed from counselvise.com 6 Identification of the seized asset/papers which in the opinion of AO of the searched assessee (S.No.2), belong to the other person/information related to the other person. (S.No.4) (i) Details of Panchanama & Annexure through which relevant asset/ document was seized/ requisitioned (ii) Date of above Panchnama (iii) Address of the place/ premises from where asset/paper/document was seized. (iv) Description of relevant asset/paper(s)/document/information (v) The brief reasons on the basis of which the AO reached to the conclusion that the relevant seized asset/ paper belongs to the other person/information relate to the other person (use Annexure if required) Mita Madhukar Sheth ITA Identification of the seized asset/papers which in the opinion of AO of the searched assessee (S.No.2), belong to the other person/information related to the other person. (S.No.4) Annexure A-2 (Pages 1 to 9) Annexure A-1 (Backup of computer and emails), Annexure A-3 (Desktop Hard Disc Segate 500GB), Annexure A-4 (Samsung Note 5), Annexure-5 (Samsung Note Edge) Annexure A-6 (Samsung Xperia Z5) (i) Details of Panchanama & Annexure through which relevant asset/ document was seized/ requisitioned Panchanama dated 19/11/2017 and Annexure A [List of seized material page] (ii) Date of above Panchnama 19/11/2017 (iii) Address of the place/ premises from where asset/paper/document Residence of Sh. Madhukar C Seth, 1901- Kanakia Aroha, Datapada Road, Near Ambamata Mandir, Borivali (East), Mumbai 400066 (iv) Description of relevant asset/paper(s)/document/information As per Annexure A attached. (v) The brief reasons on the basis of which the AO reached to the conclusion that the relevant seized asset/ paper belongs to the other person/information relate to the other exure if required) The digital data contains books of accounts of Madhukar C Seth, Mita M Seth, Pratik M seth, and business concerns of these persons. Excel sheets contain sale and purchase of shares made by Sh. Madhukar C Seth and his business concerns. The Books of accounts are available from 01/04/2003 in tally. The above digital data contain Mita Madhukar Sheth 7 No. 3530/MUM/2025 2 (Pages 1 to 9) 1 (Backup of computer and emails), 3 (Desktop Hard Disc Segate 500GB), 4 (Samsung Note - 5 (Samsung Note 6 (Samsung Xperia Panchanama dated 19/11/2017 and Annexure A [List of seized material – One Residence of Sh. Madhukar C -04, A-Wing Kanakia Aroha, Datapada Road, Near Ambamata Mandir, Borivali (East), Mumbai- As per Annexure A attached. The digital data contains books of accounts of Madhukar C Seth, Mita M Seth, Pratik M seth, and business concerns of these persons. Excel sheets contain sale and purchase of shares made by Sh. Madhukar C Seth and his business The Books of accounts are available from 01/04/2003 in tally. The above digital data contain Printed from counselvise.com 7 Assessment years involved. 5.4 In the present case, since the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the assessee is the same, the date of recording of satisfaction date of deemed handing over of the material.The financial year in which satisfaction was recorded ended on 31.03.2021. Consequently, the six assessment years permissible under section 153C would be A.Ys. 2015 years, if applicable under consideration before us is A.Y. 2014 permissible block. The assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C for A.Y. 2014–15 is therefore ex facie barred by limitation. Jurisdictional defect of this assessment and renders it void assessment framed under section 144 read with section 153C for A.Y. 2014–15 is quashed. 5.5 In view of our finding that the assessment itself is void for want of jurisdiction on account of limitation, the other grounds raised by the assessee reference to special audit, and additions on merits Mita Madhukar Sheth ITA the accounts of Ms. Mita Madhukar Seth also. Therefore, I am satisfied that these documents, information and data contained in digital media belong to Ms. Mita Mad Seth Assessment years involved. AY 2012-13 to 2018 In the present case, since the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the assessee is the same, the date of recording of satisfaction—14.10.2020—has to be treated as the deemed handing over of the material.The financial year in which satisfaction was recorded ended on 31.03.2021. Consequently, the six assessment years permissible under section 153C would be A.Ys. 2015–16 to 2020–21 (and extended years, if applicable under law). The assessment year under consideration before us is A.Y. 2014–15, which falls beyond the The assumption of jurisdiction under section 15 is therefore ex facie barred by limitation. Jurisdictional defect of this nature strikes at the very root of the assessment and renders it void ab initio. Accordingly, the assessment framed under section 144 read with section 153C for 15 is quashed. In view of our finding that the assessment itself is void for of jurisdiction on account of limitation, the other grounds raised by the assessee—challenging the legality of satisfaction, reference to special audit, and additions on merits Mita Madhukar Sheth 8 No. 3530/MUM/2025 the accounts of Ms. Mita Madhukar Seth also. Therefore, I am satisfied that these documents, information and data contained in digital media belong to Ms. Mita Madhukar 13 to 2018-19 In the present case, since the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the assessee is the same, the date of has to be treated as the deemed handing over of the material.The financial year in which satisfaction was recorded ended on 31.03.2021. Consequently, the six assessment years permissible under 21 (and extended law). The assessment year under 15, which falls beyond the The assumption of jurisdiction under section 15 is therefore ex facie barred by limitation. nature strikes at the very root of the Accordingly, the assessment framed under section 144 read with section 153C for In view of our finding that the assessment itself is void for of jurisdiction on account of limitation, the other grounds challenging the legality of satisfaction, reference to special audit, and additions on merits—become Printed from counselvise.com academic. It is settled law that once the foundation of jurisdiction fails, the superstructure cannot survive. We therefore refrain from adjudicating the remaining grounds. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27/02/2026 Ankit, 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// Mita Madhukar Sheth ITA academic. It is settled law that once the foundation of jurisdiction ils, the superstructure cannot survive. We therefore refrain from adjudicating the remaining grounds. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ounced in the open Court on 27/02/2026. SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Mita Madhukar Sheth 9 No. 3530/MUM/2025 academic. It is settled law that once the foundation of jurisdiction ils, the superstructure cannot survive. We therefore refrain /02/2026. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "