ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAJESH RAJKUMAR NAGPAL, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH; MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal Room No.-513, 5th Floor, 108-9, Neelkanth Building, N. Piramal Chamber, Parel vs. S. Road, 98 Marine Drive, Mumbai - 400012, Kalbadevi H.O, Mumbai Maharashtra, 400012 400002.

PAN: ACOPN6090K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Vinod Kumar V. - SR. DR. For Assessee : Shri Hari S. Raheja, Adv. Date of Hearing : 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.09.2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 05.01.2026, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, wherein the Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment notices issued during the period 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 under the erstwhile provisions stood validated and deemed to be show cause notices under section 1484(b) pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2022) and therefore the subsequent proceedings culminating in the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 dated 29.07.2022 were legally valid and within the framework of law? " 3. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that where the income escaping assessment exceeds Rs.50 lakh and is represented in the form of an asset, the limitation period for issuance of notice under section 148 extends up to ten years from the end of the relevant assessment year in terms of section 149(1)(b) as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and therefore the notice issued in July 2022 for A.Y. 2013-14 was within the permissible period? " 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the information relied upon by the Assessing Officer pertained to F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13 and therefore reopening of A.Y. 2013-14 was invalid, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had independently verified the bank account transactions relating to F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14 before forming the belief that income had escaped assessment and same has been added in the assessment order, as the assessee has failed to substantiate with documentary evidences?" 5. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings without considering the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO that at the stage of reopening the Assessing Officer is only required to form a prima facie "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment and not to conclusively establish such escapement? " 6. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings on legal grounds without adjudicating the merits of the addition made under section 69A, despite substantia! unexplained credits appearing in the assessee's bank account and the failure of the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source thereof." 7. "The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above questions of law at the time of hearing" 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee has initially filed his return of income on 26.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal 1,87,10,850/-, which was selected for scrutiny and order under section 143(3) was passed on 26.03.2016 assessing the total income at Rs. 1,87,10,850/-. Subsequently, basis information that the assessee has received total credit of Rs. 20,49,22,935/- and total debit of Rs. 20,43,94,055/- in his bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda, reasons were recorded and notice under Section 148 was issued on 30.06.2021. Subsequently, a fresh notice under section 148A(b) dated 30.06.2022 was issued in consequence to Hon'ble Supreme Court’s order in case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal 444 ITR 1 (SC) and the assessee was asked to show-cause and filed its response within a period of two weeks from the date of the issuance of the said notice. Thereafter, the assessee filed its objections which were considered and the information forming basis for the reopening was shared with the assessee and thereafter, order under section 148A(d) was passed on 29.07.2022 and separately notice under section 148 was also issued of even date to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed its return of income and thereafter, after issuance of notices under section 143(2) and 142(1), assessment proceedings were completed under section 147 read with 144B of the Act vide order dated 29.05.2023, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,80,10,397/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal the bank account to the tune of Rs. 7,07,28,542/- for the financial year 2012-13 and in his return of income, the assessee has shown total income both taxable and exempt to the extent of Rs. 4,27,18,145/-. Hence, the remaining credit of Rs. 2,80,10,397/- has remained unexplained and which was brought to tax.

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal reassessment notices issued during the period 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 under the erstwhile provisions stood validated and were deemed to be show cause notices under section 148A(b) pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2022). Therefore, the subsequent proceedings culminating in the order passed under section 148A(d) and the notice issued under section 148 dated 29.07.2022 were legally valid and within the statutory framework of law. Referring to the statutory time limits under the amended regime, it was submitted that where the income escaping assessment exceeds Rs. 50 lakh and is represented in the form of an asset or entry, the limitation period for issuance of notice under section 148 extends up to ten years from the end of the relevant assessment year in terms of section 149(1)(b), as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. As such, the notice issued 29.07.2022 for A.Y. 2013-14 was well within the permissible statutory time limit.

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal 8. Finally, the ld. DR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings solely on legal grounds without adjudicating the merits of the addition made under section 69A, despite substantial unexplained credits appearing in the assessee's bank account and the failure of the assessee to explain the nature and source thereof. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored.

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal accounts of the Appellant (held jointly with Mr Rajkumar M Nagpal), pertains to FY 2011-12 (AY 2012-13). The AO has, thus, erred in reopening the assessment for AY 2013-14, based on information that pertained to AY 2012-13. The Appellant has also submitted that the assessment is barred by limitation of time. In this regard, the Appellant has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of The New India Assurance Company Limited vs ACIT, WRIT PETITION NO. 1945 OF 2023, dated 15/01/2024. 5.1.1. I have considered the submissions made by the Appellant. I have also perused the assessment order. I find that notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued on 29/07/2022. The Appellant has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd ( supra) in support of the contention that notice issued u/s 148 on 29/07/2022 is barred by limitation of time. Court has held that notice dated 22/07/2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act for the purpose of reopening AY 2013-14 is barred by limitation of time. Relevant part of the order is reproduced below for reference: "1. This petition challenges (i) the notice dated 28th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) seeking to reopen petitioner's assessment for AY 2013-14, (ii) the order dated27th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and (iii) Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Instruction No.1 of 2022 dated 11th May 2022. According to petitioner, the said reopening notice, the order dated 27th July 2022 and the said Instruction are illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice, ultra vires the provisions of the Act and hence deserve to be set aside. …………………… 23 In the present case, as for AY 2013-14, the 6 years period expired on 31st March 2021, extended under Section 3(1) of TOLA. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 28th July 2022, which is under challenge in the petition, is barred by limitation. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Ved Prakash (Supra) held......... 25 The limitation for AY 2013-14 expired on 31st March 2020, which by virtue of Section 3(1) of TOLA, got extended to 31st March 2021. This was followed by a Notification dated 31st March 2021 being Notification S.O. 1432(E) [No.20/2021/F.No.370142/35/2020- TPL], which read as under: ………………………… This Notification, therefore, says that where the specified Act is the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the completion of any action referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (1) of Section 3 of TOLA relates to issuance of notice under Section 148 as per time limit specified in

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal Section 149 and 31st day of March 2021 is the end date of the period during which the time limit, specified in, or prescribed or notified under the Income Tax Act falls for the completion of such action, then, 30th day of April 2021 shall be the extended end date for the completion of such action. Therefore, this would apply only for AY 2014-15 because it says completion of any action when it relates to issuance of notice under Section 148 'as per time limit specified in Section 149' is 31st March 2021 it shall be extended to 30th April 2021. It does not say "as per time limit specified under Section 149 as extended by TOLA". For AY 2014-15, the 6 years period will end on 31st March 2021, whereas the time limit prescribed under Section 149 for AY 2013-14 is 31st March 2020. This is reiterated by the Explanation in the Notification which says for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of issuance of notice under Section 148 as per time limit specified in Section 149 under this sub-clause, the provisions of Section 149, as they stood as on the 31st March 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, shall apply. The date of the Notification is also relevant and it is 31st March 2021. 26 Another Notification dated 27th April 2021 being Notification S.O. 1703(E) [No.38/2021/F.No.370142/35/2020-TPL] came to be issued where a specific reference is made to Notification S.O.1432(E) dated 31st March 2021 and it also says the Central Government hereby specifies for the purpose of sub- section (1) of Section 3 of TOLA.' It is stated, where the specified Act is the Income Tax Act, 1961, the completion of any action, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of TOLA, relates to issuance of notice under Section 148 as per time limit specified in Section 149 and 'the time limit for such action expires on 30th April 2021 due to its extension by the said Notifications', such time limit shall further stand extended to 30th June 2021. The Notification dated 27th April 2021 reads as under: ………………………. Therefore, it only extends the time limit prescribed in Notification S.O. 1432(E) to 30th June 2021. When the Notification S.O. 1432(E) was not applicable to AY 2013-14, the question of time limit for AY 2013-14 being extended beyond 31st March 2021 does not arise. 27 Therefore, under the Income Tax Act, when the completion of any action relates to issuance of notice under Section 148 as per time limit specified in Section 149 was 31st March 2021, it shall stand extended to 30th April 2021. The time limit under Section 149 expired on 31st March 2021 only for AY 2014- 15 (and not for AY 2013-14, which expired on 31st March 2020) and has got extended by virtue of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of TOLA. The Notification does not say "issuance of notice under Section 148 as per time limit specified in Section 149 as extended under sub-

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal section (1) of Section 3 of TOLA". Therefore, the provisions of TOLA cannot apply. Also the Notifications there under do not apply to the case at hand for AY 2013-14. ……………………………. 35 The Revenue's contention that the reopening notice was to relate back to an earlier date is entirely flawed and unacceptable. Thus, the reassessment notices issued for AY 2013-14 are patently barred by limitation as the six years limitation period under the Act (as extended by Section 3 of TOLA) expired by 31st March 2021. However, even on the Revenue's demurrer and assuming that such reopening notices could travel back in time and that the provisions of TOLA protected such reopening notices (we do not agree), even then, in so far as the notices issued for AY 2013-14 is concerned, would in any case be barred by limitation. As stated earlier, under the erstwhile Section 149, a notice under Section 148 could have been issued within a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Notifications issued under TOLA, viz., Notification No.20/2021, which is relied upon by the Revenue, only cover those cases where 31st March, 2021 was the end date of the period during which the time limit, specified in, or prescribed or notified under the Income Tax Act falls for completion. The limitation under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (erstwhile Section 149) for reopening the assessment for the AY 2013-14 expired on 31st March 2020. Hence, Notification No.20/2021 did not apply to the facts of the present case, viz., reopening notice for the AY 2013-14. Therefore, the Revenue could not issue any notice under Section 148 beyond 31st March 2021 and hence, even the relate back theory of the Revenue could not safeguard the reassessment proceedings initiated after 1st April 2021 for AY 2013-14. 36 Therefore, in the present case, as the foundation of the entire reassessment proceeding, viz., the notice issued in June 2021 itself was barred by limitation in view of non-applicability of Notification No.20/2021, the superstructure sitting thereon, viz., the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to judgment in Ashish Agarwal will also be regarded as beyond time limit. Therefore, on this ground as well, the impugned reopening notice dated 28th July 2022 issued for AY 2013-14 in petitioner's case is barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Alternatively, it is well settled that a notice under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued in order to reopen the assessment of an assessee in a case where the right to reopen the assessment was already barred under the pre-amended Act on the date when the new legislation came into force. In CIT V/s. Onkarmal Meghraj (HUF)14 the Hon'ble Apex Court held: ……………………..

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal For AY 2013-14, the time limit to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act had already expired on 1st April 2021. On the said date, the assessee had a vested right, which de hors the 1st proviso to the amended Section 149 of the Act, could not be taken away and thus, based on the wellsettled principles of law, the reopening of the AY 2013-14 after 31st March 2021 is invalid, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. 38 In the circumstances, in our view, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, impugned in this petition, for AY 2013-14 is issued beyond the period of limitation. 39 Having decided in favour of assessee/petitioner on this issue of limitation, we are not discussing the other grounds of challenge raised in the petition. Petitioner may raise all those contentions independently in any other proceedings." Thus, in view of facts of the case as discussed hereinabove, and respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional of Bombay High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd (supra), involving identical facts, I hold that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation of time. Accordingly, the reassessment proceeding is invalid and, thus, the assessment order passed is bad in law.” 10. Further, our reference was drawn to the reasons recorded before issuance of notice under section 148 which reads as under:

“1. Brief details of the Assessee: The assessee is an Individual. The assessee has filed his return of income for the Α.Υ. 2013-14 on 26/09/2013 declaring total income at Rs. 1,87,10,850/- and the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the act. Thereafter, assessment order u/s 143(3) of the act was passed on 26.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs. 1,87,10,850/-. 2. Brief details of information received by the A.O. In this case information was received on e-mail from the O/o the DDIT(Inv.) (1) (1), Mumbai vide letter No.DDIT(Inv.)/Unit-(1)(1)/Information-Rajesh R. Nagpal/2018-19 dated 18.03.2019 that the assessee RAJESH R NAGPAL, has a bank account No.06950100006880 in Bank of Baroda. In the said account, the high value transactions have been taken place during F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. 3 Analysis of information received & Findings of the A.O: From the detailed analysis of the report it is noticed that the account is held jointly with Rajkumar M. Nagpal and in the said Account, during F.Y. 2011-12 large value credit and debit entries have been taken place.

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal Further it is also noticed that the assessee has received total credits amount of Rs.20,49,22,935/- and total debits amount of Rs. 20,43,94055/-during the F.Y 2011-12. However, on perusal of return of income of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 it is found that the assessee has shown his return of income at Rs.2,57,70,052/- only. Therefore, the cumulative transactions of debits and credits does not commensurate with the total income of the assessee. To extract further information for AY 2013- 14 onwards, notice u/s 133(6) of the act was issued to the assessee, but the assessee choose not to reply to the same. Hence, it is evident that the assessee does not want to disclose and to give information about his transactions which are suspicious in nature. Therefore, I am left with no other choice, but to initiate reopening proceedings on the basis of credit transaction received in AY 2012-13. 5. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income: In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and after application of my mind, I have reason to believe that at least Rs.20,00,00,000/- or any other income chargeable to tax which comes to my notice subsequently in the course of proceedings for re-assessment has escaped assessment chargeable to tax for the A.Y.2013-14 due to failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment in this case in terms of provisions of Section 147 of the I. T. Act. (This amount may further increase or decrease on the basis of findings made during re-assessment proceedings for the AY 2013- 14.) 6.Applicability of provisions of section 147/151 to the facts of the case: In this case, return of income was filed for the year under consideration and scrutiny assessment was made. Accordingly, in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above. In view of the above facts, provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 6.2 In this case, more than four years have been lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Hence, your good self is requested to kindly accord necessary approval to issue notice u/s 148 for AY 2013-14 as per the provisions laid down u/s 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6.3 Necessary sanction for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the act 1961 from Hon'ble CCIT- 5, Mumbai is accorded in this case.” 11. It was submitted that in response to the reasons so recorded and made available to the assessee, the assessee submitted that there are no credits to the tune of Rs. 20,49,22,935/- and no debits to the tune of Rs.

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal 20,43,94,055/- during the financial year 2012-13 relevant impugned to A.Y. 2013-14, and the information pertains to the earlier financial year 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13 and in support, the assessee has given the summary of the monthly bank transactions showing the debits and credits which shows total debits to the tune of Rs. 7,02,68,863/- and total credits of Rs. 6,78,19,212/- and without appreciating the same, the Assessing Officer has gone ahead and passed the order under section 148A(d) dated 29.07.2022 wherein he has held as under:

“9. The assessee in his submission has stated that from the financial year 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2013 he has earned total income of Rs. 25,93,52,778/-. The submission of the assessee has been carefully perused but the same is not acceptable. The assessee in his submission has failed to explain the nature and the sources of the credits in his bank account. The onus was on the assessee to explain the source of the credits with supporting documentary evidences which he failed to do so and hence the nature of the credits in the bank account of the assessee remained unexplained. 9.1 Further the assessee has not proved that the credits appearing in his bank account were from the loans given in the past. Further, the assessee has also not proved the source through which the amount was transferred to him nor has he furnished the bank statement of the persons from whom the credits were received in his bank account to prove the genuineness of the transaction. In view of the above facts, the income of the assessee amounting to Rs.20,00,00,000/- has escaped assessment falls within the definition of the term 'asset' as on 01.04.2021 in section 149 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 12. In this regard, our reference was also drawn to the information which was referred to by the Assessing Officer and which has been provided to the assessee vide communication dated 02.06.2022, and the same reads as under:

To. The DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 18(3), MUMBAI Sub: Information in the case of Rajesh R. Nagpal (PAN: ACOPN6090K) - reg. Please refer to the above.

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal Information has been received from reliable source in respect of high volume transactions in the account no. 06950100006880 held with Bank of Baroda. 2. Details were obtained from bank and has been analysed. It is noted from the details received from bank that the account is held jointly with Rajkumar M. Nagpal. The transaction details as seen from the bank account of the subject during the F.Y 2011-12 is given as below: - F.Y. Total Debits Total Credits 2011-12 20,43,94,055 20,49,22,935 From ITBA profiling of the subject PAN, it is seen that the subject has shown Return Income at Rs. 2,57,70,052 /-. The cumulative transactions as shown in the above table does not commensurate with the total income of the subject. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the jurisdiction of the PAN: ACOPN6090K lies with your charge, hence, the information is hereby shared with your jurisdictional office to call for the required details and verify transactions of the said account for F.Y. 2011-12 (A.Y. 2012-13) and subsequent years and to take necessary action as per provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if deems fit. Sd/- Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Unit-1(1), Mumbai 13. It was submitted that as evident from the information which was in possession of the Assessing Officer and which has formed the basis for reopening, it is evident that the said information pertains to financial year 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13 and not relevant to A.Y. 2013-14, and in spite of that information in the possession of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer has gone ahead and passed the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 of the Act. It was submitted that the said information has been duly appreciated by the ld. CIT(A) and taking the same into consideration, he has given a clear finding stating that he agrees with the assessee that the Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment for A.Y. 2013-14 on the basis of information which pertain to A.Y. 2012-13, and he has referred to the reasons for reopening and has given a clear finding stating that from the perusal of the reason, it is evident that it is relevant for A.Y. 2012-13 and not A.Y.

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal 2013-14, and therefore, the entire reassessment proceedings have got vitiated.

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal of wrong information and entire reassessment proceedings stand vitiated. The said findings of the ld CIT(A) have been contested before us.

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal maintained by the assessee has not been disclosed earlier by the assessee while filing his return of income, rather it is a case where the credits in the bank account so maintained by the assessee needs to be examined in terms of nature and source of such credits and the same has thus resulted in escapement of income. There is clearly no rational connection or nexus between the material and formation of belief that the income has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs 20 crores for A.Y 2013-14. The information pertains to one assessment year and the reasons have been recorded for another assessment year, the same thus shows not just lack of nexus but total lack of application of mind on part of the Assessing officer while recording the reasons and non-verification of the bank statements and the return of income filed originally by the assessee. The same is evident from the subsequent findings in the reassessment order where the AO himself acknowledges that there are total credits in the bank account to the tune of Rs. 7,07,28,542/- for the financial year 2012- 13 and in his return of income, the assessee has shown total income both taxable and exempt to the extent of Rs. 4,27,18,145/-, the remaining credit of Rs. 2,80,10,397/- has remained unexplained which were brought to tax.

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal to accept the contention of the ld DR that AO had independently verified the bank account transactions specifically relating to F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14 prior to forming the belief of escapement of income. In light of the same, we donot see any infirmity in the findings of the ld CIT(A) where he has rightly held that entire reassessment proceedings have been vitiated on account of the fact that reasons so recorded doesn’t pertain to assessment year under consideration and thus lacking the necessary nexus between the information and formation of belief that the income has escaped assessment for the impugned assessment year and the notice u/s 148 has been rightly held to be invalid in eyes of law and consequent assessment order passed was held as bad in law.

Order pronounced in the Open court on 17.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Mumbai, Dated: 17.09.2026 Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS

Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned

ITA No. 3418/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2013-14 Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file

By Order

Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai