MIG BANDRA REALTORS & BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 4th February 2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-47, NFAC, Mumbai, (in short ‘the learned CIT(A)’) for assessment year 2020-21, raising following grounds:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the assessment made under section 143 (3) read with

ITA 5126/MUM/2026 2 MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd. MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.

section 147, by issue of notice under section 148, when the same is illegal, bad in section 147, by issue of notice under section 148, when the same is illegal, bad in section 147, by issue of notice under section 148, when the same is illegal, bad in law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment and the additions / disallowances made by erred in confirming the assessment and the additions / disallowances made by erred in confirming the assessment and the additions / disallowances made by the AO, when such order has been passed without providing copy of reasons the AO, when such order has been passed without providing copy of reasons the AO, when such order has been passed without providing copy of reasons recorded before re-opening of the opening of the assessment and consequently the impugned assessment and consequently the impugned order is illegal and hence liable to be quashed. order is illegal and hence liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs.37,57,324/- u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs.37,57,324/ Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs.37,57,324/ 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to )(va) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to )(va) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC, when the said payments were made before the due Provident Fund and ESIC, when the said payments were made before the due Provident Fund and ESIC, when the said payments were made before the due date of filing return of income. date of filing return of income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in l 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in l Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the provisions of section 36(1) (va) were Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the provisions of section 36(1) (va) were Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the provisions of section 36(1) (va) were incorrectly invoked and the disallowance sustained is contrary to the facts and incorrectly invoked and the disallowance sustained is contrary to the facts and incorrectly invoked and the disallowance sustained is contrary to the facts and settled legal position applicable to the appellant’s case. settled legal position applicable to the appellant’s case. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) has er 5. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings red in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, delete, vary and/or 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, delete, vary and/or 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, delete, vary and/or withdraw any or all of the grounds of appeal as may be necessary.” withdraw any or all of the grounds of appeal as may be necessary. withdraw any or all of the grounds of appeal as may be necessary. 2. Briefly, stated facts of the case are that a Briefly, stated facts of the case are that assess ssessee is a private limited company. It . It filed its return of income for the year under return of income for the year under consideration on 9th February 2021 consideration on 9th February 2021, declaring total income at declaring total income at Rs. NIL, within the time within the time period prescribed under section 139 er section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961, ax Act 1961, (in short ‘the Act’). Subsequently Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s u/s 132 along with survey action 132 along with survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on conducted on 07.10.2021 on M/s DB Realty Group, DB Realty Group, Dynamics Group, and other related entities, wherein the assessee Dynamics Group, and other related entities, wherein the Dynamics Group, and other related entities, wherein the was also covered u/s u/s 132 of the Act.

ITA 5126/MUM/2026 3 MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd. MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.

return of income declaring return of income declaring total income at Rs.NIL on on 28/11/2022. In the reassessment order, however, the Assessing Officer made no reassessment order, however, the Assessing Officer made no reassessment order, however, the Assessing Officer made no addition in respect of any of the matters referr addition in respect of any of the matters referred to in the reasons ed to in the reasons for reopening namely, unaccounted transactions, concealed income, namely, unaccounted transactions, concealed income, namely, unaccounted transactions, concealed income, bogus expenses, or undisclosed income of the group. The sole bogus expenses, or undisclosed income of the group. The sole bogus expenses, or undisclosed income of the group. The sole addition made was of Rs. 37,57,324/ ddition made was of Rs. 37,57,324/- under section 2(24)(x) read under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act, on account of delayed deposit of with section 36(1)(va) of the Act, on account of delayed deposit of with section 36(1)(va) of the Act, on account of delayed deposit of employees' contributi employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC. on to Provident Fund and ESIC. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's cha he Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's cha he Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's challenge to the addition on merit, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme , following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme , following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (2022) 448 ITR Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (2022) 448 ITR Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). The relevant finding . The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) reads as under: reads as under:

“12.9 Post-judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ch judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ch judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Service Pvt Ltd vs. CIT 448 ITR 518, the controversy over the issue of delayed remittance Pvt Ltd vs. CIT 448 ITR 518, the controversy over the issue of delayed remittance Pvt Ltd vs. CIT 448 ITR 518, the controversy over the issue of delayed remittance of employees contribution to welfare funds is finally settled. The Hon’ble Court of employees contribution to welfare funds is finally settled. The Hon’ble Court of employees contribution to welfare funds is finally settled. The Hon’ble Court interpreted that employees contribution to welfare funds have to be deposited interpreted that employees contribution to welfare funds have to be deposited interpreted that employees contribution to welfare funds have to be deposited before the due dates as provided in the respective statutes for being eligible as before the due dates as provided in the respective statutes for being eligible as before the due dates as provided in the respective statutes for being eligible as business expenditure allowable u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. business expenditure allowable u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 12.10 In the present case, since the appellant admittedly deposited employees’ 12.10 In the present case, since the appellant admittedly deposited employees’ 12.10 In the present case, since the appellant admittedly deposited employees’ contribution beyond the due dates contribution beyond the due dates prescribed under the PF/ESIC Acts, the prescribed under the PF/ESIC Acts, the amount rightly falls within the mischief of section 2(24)(x), and the appellant fails amount rightly falls within the mischief of section 2(24)(x), and the appellant fails amount rightly falls within the mischief of section 2(24)(x), and the appellant fails to satisfy the condition for deduction under section 36(1)(va). Therefore, the to satisfy the condition for deduction under section 36(1)(va). Therefore, the to satisfy the condition for deduction under section 36(1)(va). Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the disall Assessing Officer was justified in making the disallowance of Rs.15,80,854/ owance of Rs.15,80,854/-. In view of the above discussion, the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing view of the above discussion, the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing view of the above discussion, the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) is confirmed. Ground No. 4 is Officer under section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) is confirmed. Ground No. 4 is Officer under section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) is confirmed. Ground No. 4 is dismissed.” 4. Before us, the Ld. he Ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the for the assessee assailed the validity of the reassessment itself on two grounds. of the reassessment itself on two grounds.

ITA 5126/MUM/2026 4 MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd. MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.

4.1 Firstly, it was submitted that the reasons , it was submitted that the reasons for reopening for reopening are generic to the entire generic to the entire ‘DB Realty’ Group and disclose no material Group and disclose no material specific to the assessee for the year under specific to the assessee for the year under consideration. It was nsideration. It was submitted that no seized document no seized document was referred was referred, no escaped income was identified identified, and no nexus between any seized material , and no nexus between any seized material and the assessee's income for AY 2020 and the assessee's income for AY 2020-21 was set out. It was set out. It was submitted that Explanation 2(i) to section 148 creates only a submitted that Explanation 2(i) to section 148 creates only a submitted that Explanation 2(i) to section 148 creates only a deemed existence of informati deemed existence of information consequent upon search but on consequent upon search but it does not dispense with the requirement that such information be does not dispense with the requirement that such information be does not dispense with the requirement that such information be shown to pertain to the assessee and to the relevant assessment shown to pertain to the assessee and to the relevan shown to pertain to the assessee and to the relevan year before the specified authority can meaningfully grant approval year before the specified authority can meaningfully grant approval year before the specified authority can meaningfully grant approval under section 151 of the Act of the Act. It was submitted that a that a reason for reopening in these generic terms, does not permit the sanctioning in these generic terms, does not permit the sanctioning in these generic terms, does not permit the sanctioning authority to apply its mind to the assessee' authority to apply its mind to the assessee's case specifically, and s case specifically, and the approval so granted is vitiated by non the approval so granted is vitiated by non-application of mind. application of mind.

4.2 Secondly, and without prejudice to the first submission, it was , and without prejudice to the first submission, it was , and without prejudice to the first submission, it was submitted that the addition act submitted that the addition actually made in the reassessment was ually made in the reassessment was of delayed deposit of employees' delayed deposit of employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) bution under section 36(1)(va) , which bears no relationship whatsoever to the reasons bears no relationship whatsoever to the reasons bears no relationship whatsoever to the reasons for reopening, , , which which which spoke spoke spoke only only only of of of unaccounted unaccounted unaccounted transactions, transactions, transactions, concealed income, bogus expenses, and undisclosed income of the concealed income, bogus expenses, and undisclosed income of the concealed income, bogus expenses, and undisclosed income of the group. No addition was made on any of group. No addition was made on any of those issues referred to in issues referred to in The ld Counsel placed reliance on PCIT v. Jet Airways PCIT v. Jet Airways the reasons. The ld Counsel placed r (India) Ltd., (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), , (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), and on the decision of and on the decision of

ITA 5126/MUM/2026 5 MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd. MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.

the Coordinate Bench in Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel v. ITO Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel v. ITO, the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 3431/Mum/2026, dated ITA No. 3431/Mum/2026, dated 30.06.2026, for the proposition , for the proposition that this principle continues to apply with full force under the that this principle continues to apply with full force under the that this principle continues to apply with full force under the reassessment regime substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. reassessment regime substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. reassessment regime substituted by the Finance Act, 2021.

A. Vagueness of reasons A. Vagueness of reasons for reopening and non non-application of mind in granting approval under section 151 mind in granting approval under section 151

The Assessing Officer while seeking approval u/s 151 of the 5.1 The Assessing Officer while seeking approval u/s 151 of the The Assessing Officer while seeking approval u/s 151 of the Act for issue of notice u/s 148 has referred the reasons to explain Act for issue of notice u/s 148 has referred the reasons to explain Act for issue of notice u/s 148 has referred the reasons to explain that income had escaped assessment. For ready reference said that income had escaped assessment. For ready that income had escaped assessment. For ready reasons are reproduced as under: reasons are reproduced as under:

“In the case of DB Realty Group, a search & seizure action u/s. 132 of the In the case of DB Realty Group, a search & seizure action u/s. 132 of the In the case of DB Realty Group, a search & seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 07.10.2021, wherein the assessee viz tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 07.10.2021, wherein the assessee viz tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 07.10.2021, wherein the assessee viz M/s MIG Bandra Realtors and Builders Pvt Ltd was also M/s MIG Bandra Realtors and Builders Pvt Ltd was also covered u/s. 132 of the covered u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. tax Act, 1961. During During During the the the course course course of of of search search search & & & seizure seizure seizure action, action, action, various various various incriminating incriminating incriminating documents/papers and digital data were found and seized, which validates that documents/papers and digital data were found and seized, which validates that documents/papers and digital data were found and seized, which validates that the group has carried out unaccounted transaction, concealed income, bogus the group has carried out unaccounted transaction, concealed inc the group has carried out unaccounted transaction, concealed inc expenses etc. Statement of key persons including that of the assessee has been expenses etc. Statement of key persons including that of the assessee has been expenses etc. Statement of key persons including that of the assessee has been recorded and confronted with related documents found and seized. Search & recorded and confronted with related documents found and seized. Search & recorded and confronted with related documents found and seized. Search & seizure action resulted into undisclosed income of Rs. 486,26,37,075/- of the seizure action resulted into undisclosed income of Rs. 486,26,37,075/ seizure action resulted into undisclosed income of Rs. 486,26,37,075/

ITA 5126/MUM/2026 6 MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd. MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.

entire DB Realty Group. Cash & jewellery has also been seized amounting to Rs. ty Group. Cash & jewellery has also been seized amounting to Rs. ty Group. Cash & jewellery has also been seized amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/- & 32,41,730 respectively. & 32,41,730 respectively. The above context, in terms of Explanation 2(i) of Section 148 of the Income-tax The above context, in terms of Explanation 2(i) of Section 148 of the Income The above context, in terms of Explanation 2(i) of Section 148 of the Income Act, 1961, suggest that the Assessing Officer has deemed information w.r.t. Act, 1961, suggest that the Assessing Officer has deemed information w.r Act, 1961, suggest that the Assessing Officer has deemed information w.r income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.” 5.2 The reasons for reopening of the case reproduced above, state 5.2 The reasons for reopening of the case reproduced above, state 5.2 The reasons for reopening of the case reproduced above, state no more than that “a search was conducted on the DB Realty Group; a search was conducted on the DB Realty Group; a search was conducted on the DB Realty Group; that incriminating material was found that incriminating material was found , which validates that the which validates that the group has carried out unaccounted transaction, concealed income, has carried out unaccounted transaction, concealed income, has carried out unaccounted transaction, concealed income, bogus expenses etc." bogus expenses etc."; and that the group as a whole yielded that the group as a whole yielded undisclosed income of Rs. 486,26,37,075/ undisclosed income of Rs. 486,26,37,075/-. Beyond naming the Beyond naming the assessee as one of the entities covered in the search, the reasons assessee as one of the entities covered in the search, the reasons assessee as one of the entities covered in the search, the reasons contain no reference to any specific document or digital data seized no reference to any specific document or digital data seized no reference to any specific document or digital data seized from, or pertaining to, the assessee; no description of the nature of from, or pertaining to, the assessee; no description of the nature of from, or pertaining to, the assessee; no description of the nature of the income alleged to have escaped assessment in its hands; and no the income alleged to have escaped assessment in its hands; and no the income alleged to have escaped assessment in its hands; and no indication of the assessment year to which any such material indication of the assessment year to which any such materi indication of the assessment year to which any such materi relates.

5.3 Explanation 2(i) to section 148 of the Act creates a deeming 5.3 Explanation 2(i) to section 148 of the Act creates a deeming 5.3 Explanation 2(i) to section 148 of the Act creates a deeming fiction that, upon search under section 132 on or after 01.04.2021, fiction that, upon search under section 132 on or after 01.04.2021, fiction that, upon search under section 132 on or after 01.04.2021, the Assessing Officer of the searched person " the Assessing Officer of the searched person "shall be shall be deemed to have information which suggests that the incom have information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax e chargeable to tax has escaped assessment." This fiction dispenses with the necessity " This fiction dispenses with the necessity has escaped assessment. of establishing, at the of establishing, at the threshold that information exists; it does not information exists; it does not dispense with the requirement, embedded in the first proviso to dispense with the requirement, embedded in the first proviso to dispense with the requirement, embedded in the first proviso to section 148, that such information section 148, that such information must suggest escapement of must suggest escapement of

ITA 5126/MUM/2026 7 MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd. MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.

income in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment income in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment income in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year." The deeming fiction operates upon the fact of search; it does year." The deeming fiction operates upon the fact of search; it does year." The deeming fiction operates upon the fact of search; it does not extend to deeming that generic, group not extend to deeming that generic, group-level findings are, level findings are, without more, referable to a parti without more, referable to a particular assessee for a particular cular assessee for a particular year. Before granting approval under section 151, the specified year. Before granting approval under section 151, the specified year. Before granting approval under section 151, the specified authority is required to satisfy itself that the information authority is required to satisfy itself that the information authority is required to satisfy itself that the information communicated by the Assessing Officer bears on the assessee communicated by the Assessing Officer bears on the assessee communicated by the Assessing Officer bears on the assessee before it and the year for which the no before it and the year for which the notice is proposed to be issued, tice is proposed to be issued, a satisfaction that presupposes reasons disclosing, at least in a satisfaction that presupposes reasons disclosing, at least in a satisfaction that presupposes reasons disclosing, at least in outline, the assessee outline, the assessee-specific material and its bearing on the specific material and its bearing on the relevant year.

5.4 In the present case, the reasons for 5.4 In the present case, the reasons for reopening reopening don’t disclose either assessee-specific material pecific material or its bearing on the relevant year. its bearing on the relevant year. They are couched entirely in terms of the DB Realty Group as a They are couched entirely in terms of the DB Realty Group as a They are couched entirely in terms of the DB Realty Group as a whole, without isolating any material said to whole, without isolating any material said to be belong belonging to, or concerned to the present assessee for AY 2020 the present assessee for AY 2020-21. Approval granted 21. Approval granted on the strength of such reasons cannot be said to reflect application strength of such reasons cannot be said to reflect application strength of such reasons cannot be said to reflect application of mind by the specified authority to the case of this particular of mind by the specified authority to the case of this particular of mind by the specified authority to the case of this particular assessee; it reflects, at best, a mechanical extension of group-level assessee; it reflects, at best, a mechanical extension of group assessee; it reflects, at best, a mechanical extension of group findings to every entity covered in the search. We accordingly hold findings to every entity covered in the search. We accor findings to every entity covered in the search. We accor that the reasons for that the reasons for reopening suffer from vagueness and lack of from vagueness and lack of assessee specific particulars, and that the approval granted under specific particulars, and that the approval granted under specific particulars, and that the approval granted under section 151 on the basis of such reasons is vitiated by non- section 151 on the basis of such reasons is vitiated by non section 151 on the basis of such reasons is vitiated by non application of mind. This ground succeeds. application of mind. This ground succeeds.

ITA 5126/MUM/2026 8 MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd. MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.

B. No addition made on the basis of the reasons recorded ition made on the basis of the reasons recorded ition made on the basis of the reasons recorded

5.5 Independently of the above, we find equal merit in the 5.5 Independently of the above, we find equal merit in the 5.5 Independently of the above, we find equal merit in the assessee's second submission. The reasons assessee's second submission. The reasons for reopening for reopening refer exclusively to unaccounted transactions, concealed income, and exclusively to unaccounted transactions, concealed income, and exclusively to unaccounted transactions, concealed income, and bogus expenses detected in the course of the search on the DB bogus expenses detected in the course of the search on the DB bogus expenses detected in the course of the search on the DB Realty Group. The reassessment order, however, contains no Realty Group. The reassessment order, however, contains no Realty Group. The reassessment order, however, contains no discussion, verification, or addition on any of tho ation, or addition on any of those matters. se matters. The sole addition sustained is of Rs. 37,57,324/ sole addition sustained is of Rs. 37,57,324/- under section 2(24)(x) under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act, concerning delayed deposit of read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act, concerning delayed deposit of read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act, concerning delayed deposit of employees' contributi employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC , on to Provident Fund and ESIC , a matter of routine compliance wholly unconnected with the s routine compliance wholly unconnected with the search, finding no earch, finding no mention in the reasons mention in the reasons for reopening and not traceable to any and not traceable to any material seized in the search. material seized in the search.

5.6 The law on this point is well settled. The Hon'ble jurisdictional 5.6 The law on this point is well settled. The Hon'ble jurisdictional 5.6 The law on this point is well settled. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. CIT v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd., (2011) 331 ITR , (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), held that the words "and also" in section 147 o eld that the words "and also" in section 147 o eld that the words "and also" in section 147 of the Act must be read together. must be read together. The Assessing Officer must first assess or Assessing Officer must first assess or reassess the income that formed the basis of the reasons recorded, reassess the income that formed the basis of the reasons recorded, reassess the income that formed the basis of the reasons recorded, and it is only upon doing so that jurisdiction is acquired to assess and it is only upon doing so that jurisdiction is acquired to asses and it is only upon doing so that jurisdiction is acquired to asses any other income that comes to notice during the reassessment any other income that comes to notice during the reassessment any other income that comes to notice during the reassessment proceedings. Where the income that formed the very basis of proceedings. Where the income that formed the very basis of proceedings. Where the income that formed the very basis of reopening is not, in the end, assessed, the reassessment cannot be reopening is not, in the end, assessed, the reassessment cannot be reopening is not, in the end, assessed, the reassessment cannot be sustained merely to support an addition on an unrelated issue. sustained merely to support an addition on an unrelated issue. sustained merely to support an addition on an unrelated issue.

ITA 5126/MUM/2026 9 MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd. MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.

7 A Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in Chandrakant 5.7 A Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in 7 A Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in Mohanbhai Patel v. ITO Mohanbhai Patel v. ITO (supra), has applied this very principle to has applied this very principle to reassessments framed under the substituted regime introduced by reassessments framed under the substituted regime introduced by reassessments framed under the substituted regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. It held that the new regime, by requiring the Finance Act, 2021. It held that the new regime, by requiring the Finance Act, 2021. It held that the new regime, by requiring disclosure of information under section 148A(b) and recording of sure of information under section 148A(b) and recording of sure of information under section 148A(b) and recording of satisfaction thereon under section 148A(d), anchors the jurisdiction satisfaction thereon under section 148A(d), anchors the jurisdiction satisfaction thereon under section 148A(d), anchors the jurisdiction to reopen even more closely to the specific information disclosed to reopen even more closely to the specific information disclosed to reopen even more closely to the specific information disclosed than did the erstwhile "reason to believe" standard; that Parliament, than did the erstwhile "reason to believe" standard; that Parl than did the erstwhile "reason to believe" standard; that Parl having retained the words "and also any other income" in section having retained the words "and also any other income" in section having retained the words "and also any other income" in section 147 despite the settled interpretation placed upon them in Jet 147 despite the settled interpretation placed upon them in 147 despite the settled interpretation placed upon them in Airways (supra), (supra), (supra), must must must be be be taken taken taken to to to have have have approved approved approved that that that interpretation; and that permitting a reassessment to survive on an interpretation; and that permitting a reassessment to survive on an interpretation; and that permitting a reassessment to survive on an addition unconnected with the information disclosed, once that addition unconnected with the information disclosed, once that addition unconnected with the information disclosed, once that information itself yields no addition, would render the safeguards information itself yields no addition, would render the safeguards information itself yields no addition, would render the safeguards under section 148A illusory. The Coordinate Bench accordingly under section 148A illusory. The Coordinate Bench accordingly under section 148A illusory. The Coordinate Bench accordingly quashed the reassessment before it, following also Milan Agency Milan Agency v. quashed the reassessment before it, following also ITO, ITA No. 5414/Mum/2024, , ITA No. 5414/Mum/2024, decided on materially similar decided on materially similar facts. The coordinate Bench in the case of Chandrakant Mohanbhai The coordinate Bench in the case of Chandrakant Mohanbhai The coordinate Bench in the case of Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel (supra) has held as under: Patel (supra) has held as under:

ITA 5126/MUM/2026 10 MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd. MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.

6.1 The Finance Act, 2021 has substituted the entire reassessment framework by 6.1 The Finance Act, 2021 has substituted the entire reassessment framework by 6.1 The Finance Act, 2021 has substituted the entire reassessment framework by introducing Section 148A and substantially amending Sections 147 to 151 of the introducing Section 148A and substantially amending Sections 147 to 151 of the introducing Section 148A and substantially amending Sections 147 to 151 of the Act. Under the substituted regime, before issuing a notice under Section 148, the Under the substituted regime, before issuing a notice under Section 148, the Under the substituted regime, before issuing a notice under Section 148, the Assessing Officer is statutorily obliged to identify the "information which suggests Assessing Officer is statutorily obliged to identify the "information which suggests Assessing Officer is statutorily obliged to identify the "information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment", furnish such information that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment", furnish such information that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment", furnish such information to the assessee by issuing a notice under Section 148A(b), consider the reply filed e by issuing a notice under Section 148A(b), consider the reply filed e by issuing a notice under Section 148A(b), consider the reply filed by the assessee, and thereafter pass a reasoned order under Section 148A(d) by the assessee, and thereafter pass a reasoned order under Section 148A(d) by the assessee, and thereafter pass a reasoned order under Section 148A(d) determining whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148. determining whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148. determining whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148. Thus, unlike the erstwhile prov Thus, unlike the erstwhile provisions, the jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is isions, the jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is no longer founded merely upon the uncommunicated subjective satisfaction of the no longer founded merely upon the uncommunicated subjective satisfaction of the no longer founded merely upon the uncommunicated subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The jurisdictional foundation now rests upon the specific Assessing Officer. The jurisdictional foundation now rests upon the specific Assessing Officer. The jurisdictional foundation now rests upon the specific information disclosed to the assessee, who is a information disclosed to the assessee, who is afforded a statutory opportunity to fforded a statutory opportunity to rebut the same before issuance of notice under Section 148. The legislative rebut the same before issuance of notice under Section 148. The legislative rebut the same before issuance of notice under Section 148. The legislative scheme, therefore, clearly manifests that the reassessment proceedings originate scheme, therefore, clearly manifests that the reassessment proceedings originate scheme, therefore, clearly manifests that the reassessment proceedings originate from and remain anchored to the information communicated under Section from and remain anchored to the information communicated under S from and remain anchored to the information communicated under S 148A(b). Consequently, the validity of the reassessment necessarily depends 148A(b). Consequently, the validity of the reassessment necessarily depends 148A(b). Consequently, the validity of the reassessment necessarily depends upon the survival of the very foundation on which jurisdiction was assumed. upon the survival of the very foundation on which jurisdiction was assumed. upon the survival of the very foundation on which jurisdiction was assumed. 6.2 In the present case, the notice issued under Section 148A(b), read with the 6.2 In the present case, the notice issued under Section 148A(b), read with the 6.2 In the present case, the notice issued under Section 148A(b), read with the order passed under Section 148A(d), reveals that the Chandrakant Mohanbhai r Section 148A(d), reveals that the Chandrakant Mohanbhai r Section 148A(d), reveals that the Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 9 reassessment was proposed on account of the following information: (i) Patel 9 reassessment was proposed on account of the following information: (i) Patel 9 reassessment was proposed on account of the following information: (i) cash deposits in bank account; (ii) cash withdrawals; (iii) turnover reported in cash deposits in bank account; (ii) cash withdrawals; (iii) turnover reported in cash deposits in bank account; (ii) cash withdrawals; (iii) turnover reported in GST returns; (iv) TDS information; (v) GST returns; (iv) TDS information; (v) depository transactions; and (vi) other depository transactions; and (vi) other information available through the Insight Portal. Significantly, the alleged information available through the Insight Portal. Significantly, the alleged information available through the Insight Portal. Significantly, the alleged unsecured loan of Rs.15,00,000 received from M/s. Vavya Enterprises, which unsecured loan of Rs.15,00,000 received from M/s. Vavya Enterprises, which unsecured loan of Rs.15,00,000 received from M/s. Vavya Enterprises, which ultimately formed the sole basis of addition under Section 68, does not find ultimately formed the sole basis of addition under Section 68, ultimately formed the sole basis of addition under Section 68, mention either in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) or in the order passed mention either in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) or in the order passed mention either in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) or in the order passed under Section 148A(d). Equally significant is the fact that while completing the under Section 148A(d). Equally significant is the fact that while completing the under Section 148A(d). Equally significant is the fact that while completing the reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B, the Assessing Officer reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B, the Assessing Officer reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B, the Assessing Officer has not made any addition whatsoever in respect of any of the issues forming the not made any addition whatsoever in respect of any of the issues forming the not made any addition whatsoever in respect of any of the issues forming the very basis of reopening. The only addition made is under Section 68 in respect of very basis of reopening. The only addition made is under Section 68 in respect of very basis of reopening. The only addition made is under Section 68 in respect of the unsecured loan received from M/s. Vavya Enterprises, which is admittedly an the unsecured loan received from M/s. Vavya Enterprises, which is admittedly an the unsecured loan received from M/s. Vavya Enterprises, which is admittedly an altogether distinct issue. nct issue. 6.3 The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. 6.3 The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. 6.3 The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) held that the expression "and Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) held that the expression "and Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) held that the expression "and also any other income" occurring in Section 147 cannot be read in isolation. The also any other income" occurring in Section 147 cannot be read in isolation. The also any other income" occurring in Section 147 cannot be read in isolation. The Hon'ble Court held that the Assessing Officer must first assess or reassess the 'ble Court held that the Assessing Officer must first assess or reassess the 'ble Court held that the Assessing Officer must first assess or reassess the income which formed the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening. It is only income which formed the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening. It is only income which formed the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening. It is only thereafter that he acquires jurisdiction to assess any other income which may thereafter that he acquires jurisdiction to assess any other income which may thereafter that he acquires jurisdiction to assess any other income which may come to his notice du come to his notice during the reassessment Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 10 ring the reassessment Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 10 proceedings. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court further held that where the proceedings. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court further held that where the proceedings. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court further held that where the Assessing Officer ultimately does not assess the income which constituted the Assessing Officer ultimately does not assess the income which constituted the Assessing Officer ultimately does not assess the income which constituted the basis for reopening, the reassessment cannot b basis for reopening, the reassessment cannot be sustained merely for making e sustained merely for making additions on other issues discovered subsequently. In other words, the additions on other issues discovered subsequently. In other words, the additions on other issues discovered subsequently. In other words, the jurisdiction to assess "any other income" is merely incidental and supplemental to jurisdiction to assess "any other income" is merely incidental and supplemental to jurisdiction to assess "any other income" is merely incidental and supplemental to

ITA 5126/MUM/2026 11 MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd. MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.

the jurisdiction validly exercised in respect of the income for which the the jurisdiction validly exercised in respect of the income for which th the jurisdiction validly exercised in respect of the income for which th assessment was reopened. assessment was reopened. 6.4 Although the present reassessment is governed by the substituted provisions 6.4 Although the present reassessment is governed by the substituted provisions 6.4 Although the present reassessment is governed by the substituted provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, we are of the considered view that the ratio introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, we are of the considered view that the ratio introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra) continues to hold the field. In fact, laid down in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra) continues to hold the laid down in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra) continues to hold the the substituted statutory framework reinforces, rather than dilutes, the principle the substituted statutory framework reinforces, rather than dilutes, the principle the substituted statutory framework reinforces, rather than dilutes, the principle laid down therein. Section 148A(b) mandates disclosure of the information laid down therein. Section 148A(b) mandates disclosure of the information laid down therein. Section 148A(b) mandates disclosure of the information suggesting escapement of income, while Section 148A(d) requires the Assessing suggesting escapement of income, while Section 148A(d) requires the Assessing suggesting escapement of income, while Section 148A(d) requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction with respect to such information before assuming cer to record satisfaction with respect to such information before assuming cer to record satisfaction with respect to such information before assuming jurisdiction under Section 148. Therefore, the jurisdiction itself is founded upon jurisdiction under Section 148. Therefore, the jurisdiction itself is founded upon jurisdiction under Section 148. Therefore, the jurisdiction itself is founded upon the specific information disclosed to the assessee. Where, ultimately, no addition the specific information disclosed to the assessee. Where, ultimately, no addition the specific information disclosed to the assessee. Where, ultimately, no addition is made on the very issue constituting the basis for assumption of jurisdiction, the very issue constituting the basis for assumption of jurisdiction, the very issue constituting the basis for assumption of jurisdiction, the substratum of the reassessment disappears. In such circumstances, permitting substratum of the reassessment disappears. In such circumstances, permitting substratum of the reassessment disappears. In such circumstances, permitting the Assessing Officer to sustain the reassessment solely for making an addition the Assessing Officer to sustain the reassessment solely for making an addition the Assessing Officer to sustain the reassessment solely for making an addition on an Chandrakant Mohanbhai on an Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 11 altogether unrelated issue would render Patel 11 altogether unrelated issue would render the statutory safeguards introduced by Parliament under Section 148A wholly the statutory safeguards introduced by Parliament under Section 148A wholly the statutory safeguards introduced by Parliament under Section 148A wholly nugatory. 6.5 The Finance Act, 2021 has undoubtedly altered the procedural framework 6.5 The Finance Act, 2021 has undoubtedly altered the procedural framework 6.5 The Finance Act, 2021 has undoubtedly altered the procedural framework governing reassessment. However, the amendment governing reassessment. However, the amendments merely strengthen the s merely strengthen the procedural safeguards available to the assessee by introducing a pre-notice procedural safeguards available to the assessee by introducing a pre procedural safeguards available to the assessee by introducing a pre enquiry under Section 148A. They do not enlarge the substantive jurisdiction of enquiry under Section 148A. They do not enlarge the substantive jurisdiction of enquiry under Section 148A. They do not enlarge the substantive jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to assess issues wholly unconnected with the information the Assessing Officer to assess issues wholly unconnected with the informati the Assessing Officer to assess issues wholly unconnected with the informati forming the basis of reopening. Significantly, Parliament has not altered the forming the basis of reopening. Significantly, Parliament has not altered the forming the basis of reopening. Significantly, Parliament has not altered the substantive language of Section 147 in so far as it empowers the Assessing substantive language of Section 147 in so far as it empowers the Assessing substantive language of Section 147 in so far as it empowers the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess the escaped income and "also any other income" Officer to assess or reassess the escaped income and "also any other income" Officer to assess or reassess the escaped income and "also any other income" which comes to his noti which comes to his notice during the course of reassessment proceedings. The ce during the course of reassessment proceedings. The expression "and also", which formed the foundation of the interpretation adopted expression "and also", which formed the foundation of the interpretation adopted expression "and also", which formed the foundation of the interpretation adopted by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra), remains by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra), remains by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra), remains unchanged. It is a settled principle of sta unchanged. It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that where tutory interpretation that where Parliament retains the same statutory language despite being aware of the Parliament retains the same statutory language despite being aware of the Parliament retains the same statutory language despite being aware of the judicial interpretation placed thereon, such interpretation must ordinarily be judicial interpretation placed thereon, such interpretation must ordinarily be judicial interpretation placed thereon, such interpretation must ordinarily be regarded as having received legislative approval. regarded as having received legislative approval. 6.6 Indeed, under th 6.6 Indeed, under the substituted regime, the jurisdictional foundation is even e substituted regime, the jurisdictional foundation is even more clearly defined. Under the erstwhile provisions, the reassessment was more clearly defined. Under the erstwhile provisions, the reassessment was more clearly defined. Under the erstwhile provisions, the reassessment was founded upon the "reasons to believe" recorded by the Assessing Officer. Under founded upon the "reasons to believe" recorded by the Assessing Officer. Under founded upon the "reasons to believe" recorded by the Assessing Officer. Under the substituted Chandrakant Mohanbhai Pate the substituted Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 12 provisions, the jurisdiction is l 12 provisions, the jurisdiction is founded upon the "information suggesting escapement of income" disclosed under founded upon the "information suggesting escapement of income" disclosed under founded upon the "information suggesting escapement of income" disclosed under Section 148A(b) and accepted in the order passed under Section 148A(d). Thus, Section 148A(b) and accepted in the order passed under Section 148A(d). Thus, Section 148A(b) and accepted in the order passed under Section 148A(d). Thus, although the form has changed, the jurisdictional foundation remains the same, although the form has changed, the jurisdictional foundation r although the form has changed, the jurisdictional foundation r namely, the existence of identified information indicating escapement of income. namely, the existence of identified information indicating escapement of income. namely, the existence of identified information indicating escapement of income. Consequently, where the Assessing Officer ultimately accepts, either expressly or Consequently, where the Assessing Officer ultimately accepts, either expressly or Consequently, where the Assessing Officer ultimately accepts, either expressly or by necessary implication, that no addition is warranted on the very issue forming by necessary implication, that no addition is warranted on the very issue fo by necessary implication, that no addition is warranted on the very issue fo the foundation of reopening, the reassessment loses its jurisdictional basis. Once the foundation of reopening, the reassessment loses its jurisdictional basis. Once the foundation of reopening, the reassessment loses its jurisdictional basis. Once

ITA 5126/MUM/2026 12 MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd. MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.

the jurisdictional foundation fails, the consequential exercise of jurisdiction in the jurisdictional foundation fails, the consequential exercise of jurisdiction in the jurisdictional foundation fails, the consequential exercise of jurisdiction in respect of other independent issues cannot survive. respect of other independent issues cannot survive. 6.7 Any other interpretation wou 6.7 Any other interpretation would defeat the very object underlying the ld defeat the very object underlying the introduction of Section 148A. Parliament consciously introduced a pre-notice introduction of Section 148A. Parliament consciously introduced a pre introduction of Section 148A. Parliament consciously introduced a pre adjudicatory mechanism to ensure that reassessment proceedings are founded adjudicatory mechanism to ensure that reassessment proceedings are founded adjudicatory mechanism to ensure that reassessment proceedings are founded upon specific, tangible and disclosed information. If, after in upon specific, tangible and disclosed information. If, after invoking jurisdiction on voking jurisdiction on one set of information, the Assessing Officer is permitted to abandon that very one set of information, the Assessing Officer is permitted to abandon that very one set of information, the Assessing Officer is permitted to abandon that very foundation and sustain the reassessment solely on an altogether different issue foundation and sustain the reassessment solely on an altogether different issue foundation and sustain the reassessment solely on an altogether different issue discovered subsequently, the safeguards consciously incorporated by Parliament discovered subsequently, the safeguards consciously incorporated by Parli discovered subsequently, the safeguards consciously incorporated by Parli would become illusory. Such an interpretation would not only frustrate the would become illusory. Such an interpretation would not only frustrate the would become illusory. Such an interpretation would not only frustrate the legislative intent underlying the Finance Act, 2021 but would also Chandrakant legislative intent underlying the Finance Act, 2021 but would also Chandrakant legislative intent underlying the Finance Act, 2021 but would also Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 13 permit reassessment proceedings to travel beyond the Mohanbhai Patel 13 permit reassessment proceedings to travel beyond the Mohanbhai Patel 13 permit reassessment proceedings to travel beyond the jurisdictional foundatio jurisdictional foundation on which they were initiated. 6.8 We also find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Milan Agency v. 6.8 We also find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Milan Agency v. 6.8 We also find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Milan Agency v. ITO, ITA No. 5414/Mum/2024, after considering the substituted reassessment ITO, ITA No. 5414/Mum/2024, after considering the substituted reassessment ITO, ITA No. 5414/Mum/2024, after considering the substituted reassessment provisions and following the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court provisions and following the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay Hig provisions and following the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay Hig in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra), held that where no addition is made on the in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra), held that where no addition is made on the in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra), held that where no addition is made on the issue for which the reassessment proceedings were initiated, the Assessing issue for which the reassessment proceedings were initiated, the Assessing issue for which the reassessment proceedings were initiated, the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction to make additions on any other issue. The relevant Officer lacks jurisdiction to make additions on any other issue. The relevant Officer lacks jurisdiction to make additions on any other issue. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: Tribunal is reproduced as under:- "7. Before us, the ld. Counsel in respect of additional ground filed vehemently "7. Before us, the ld. Counsel in respect of additional ground filed vehemently "7. Before us, the ld. Counsel in respect of additional ground filed vehemently contended that no addition has been made on the issues raised in the reason contended that no addition has been made on the issues raised in the reason contended that no addition has been made on the issues raised in the reason provided in the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act. He further made reliance on provided in the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act. He further m provided in the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act. He further m the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Jet Airways (I) the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Jet Airways (I) the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 336 (Bombay). The ld. Counsel also filed paper book Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 336 (Bombay). The ld. Counsel also filed paper book Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 336 (Bombay). The ld. Counsel also filed paper book comprising copies of details and submission filed before the lower authorities. He comprising copies of details and submission filed before the lower authorities. He comprising copies of details and submission filed before the lower authorities. He submitted that as per accounting standard, the assessee was following an tted that as per accounting standard, the assessee was following an tted that as per accounting standard, the assessee was following an exclusive system and accordingly VAT collection and VAT liability and payment exclusive system and accordingly VAT collection and VAT liability and payment exclusive system and accordingly VAT collection and VAT liability and payment was accounted separately and was not formed part of P&L A/c and the lower was accounted separately and was not formed part of P&L A/c and the lower was accounted separately and was not formed part of P&L A/c and the lower authorities has not disputed the det authorities has not disputed the details and documentary evidences furnished. ails and documentary evidences furnished. 8. On the other hand Id. DR supported the order of lower authorities. 8. On the other hand Id. DR supported the order of lower authorities. 8. On the other hand Id. DR supported the order of lower authorities. 9 Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The case of the 9 Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The case of the 9 Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information from the CGST Authorities assessee was reopened on the basis of information from the CGST Autho assessee was reopened on the basis of information from the CGST Autho that M/s. Germanium Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Cannonball Trading Pvt. Ltd. that M/s. Germanium Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Cannonball Trading Pvt. Ltd. that M/s. Germanium Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Cannonball Trading Pvt. Ltd. have issued bogus invoices and the assessee has received such bogus invoices. have issued bogus invoices and the assessee has received such bogus invoices. have issued bogus invoices and the assessee has received such bogus invoices. The assessee was asked to submit the detail in respect of bogus invoices of Rs. The assessee was asked to submit the detail in respect of bogus invoices of Rs. The assessee was asked to submit the detail in respect of bogus invoices of Rs. 1,07,68,326/- received from the above entities and was also asked to show eceived from the above entities and was also asked to show eceived from the above entities and was also asked to show cause and explain by such bogus invoices of Rs. 1,07,68,328/- shall not be cause and explain by such bogus invoices of Rs. 1,07,68,328/ cause and explain by such bogus invoices of Rs. 1,07,68,328/ treated as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act. However, the AO has not made treated as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act. However, the AO has not made treated as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act. However, the AO has not made any discussion verification and examination o any discussion verification and examination of this issue in the assessment f this issue in the assessment order. On the other hand, the AO has made addition of Rs. 2,84,16,279/-on order. On the other hand, the AO has made addition of Rs. 2,84,16,279/ order. On the other hand, the AO has made addition of Rs. 2,84,16,279/ account of recalculation of the net profit on the basis of party wise sale amount of account of recalculation of the net profit on the basis of party wise sale amount of account of recalculation of the net profit on the basis of party wise sale amount of

ITA 5126/MUM/2026 13 MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd. MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Rs. 36,24,13,765/- furnished by the assessee and purchase amount o furnished by the assessee and purchase amount of Rs. 32,77,88,333/- shown n the trading account of the assesscc. It is noticed that shown n the trading account of the assesscc. It is noticed that shown n the trading account of the assesscc. It is noticed that Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 14 without any reason the AO has ignored the Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 14 without any reason the AO has ignored the Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 14 without any reason the AO has ignored the corresponding party wise purchase amount of Rs. 34,89,13,119/- to the party corresponding party wise purchase amount of Rs. 34,89,13,119/ corresponding party wise purchase amount of Rs. 34,89,13,119/ wise sale and also not wise sale and also not considered the sale amount of Rs. 33,24,60,256/ considered the sale amount of Rs. 33,24,60,256/- shown in the trading account. The AO has also not controverted the relevant material in the trading account. The AO has also not controverted the relevant material in the trading account. The AO has also not controverted the relevant material submitted during the course of assessment proceedings that the VAT paid on submitted during the course of assessment proceedings that the VAT paid on submitted during the course of assessment proceedings that the VAT paid on purchases as well as VAT collected on sales wa purchases as well as VAT collected on sales was separately accounted and not s separately accounted and not passed through P&L account. In respect of additional ground of appeal on the passed through P&L account. In respect of additional ground of appeal on the passed through P&L account. In respect of additional ground of appeal on the validity of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, we have perused the the validity of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, we have perused the the validity of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, we have perused the the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jet Airways (1) Ltd., decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jet Ai decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jet Ai 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) 2010 wherein held that effect of section 147 is that the AO 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) 2010 wherein held that effect of section 147 is that the AO 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) 2010 wherein held that effect of section 147 is that the AO has to assess or reassess such income that has escaped assessment and which has to assess or reassess such income that has escaped assessment and which has to assess or reassess such income that has escaped assessment and which was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to eassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to eassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings. Since in the case of the assessee his notice during the course of the proceedings. Since in the case of the assessee his notice during the course of the proceedings. Since in the case of the assessee the AO had not made addition on the issue of bogus invoices as alleged to be the AO had not made addition on the issue of bogus invoices as alleged to be the AO had not made addition on the issue of bogus invoices as alleged to be obtained from M/s. Cann obtained from M/s. Cannonball Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Germanium Trading onball Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Germanium Trading Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of which the case was reopened as escaped assessment Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of which the case was reopened as escaped assessment Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of which the case was reopened as escaped assessment therefore following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdiction as discussed supra, the therefore following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdiction as discussed supra, the therefore following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdiction as discussed supra, the AO is not justified in making the other additio AO is not justified in making the other addition as discussed above in this order." n as discussed above in this order." 6.9 Accordingly, respectfully following the binding decision of the Hon'ble 6.9 Accordingly, respectfully following the binding decision of the Hon'ble 6.9 Accordingly, respectfully following the binding decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), whose ratio, in our considered opinion, continues to govern reassessment (Bom.), whose ratio, in our considered opinion, continues to go (Bom.), whose ratio, in our considered opinion, continues to go proceedings even under the substituted statutory regime, we hold that the proceedings even under the substituted statutory regime, we hold that the proceedings even under the substituted statutory regime, we hold that the reassessment framed in the present case is without jurisdiction and is liable to be reassessment framed in the present case is without jurisdiction and is liable to be reassessment framed in the present case is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. 5.8 Respectfully, follow following the Tribunal in the case of ing the Tribunal in the case of Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel (supra) anbhai Patel (supra), we hold that the addition of Rs. he addition of Rs. 37,57,324/- under section 36(1)(va) has no nexus with the reasons under section 36(1)(va) has no nexus with the reasons under section 36(1)(va) has no nexus with the reasons for reopening, which spoke solely of unaccounted transactions and , which spoke solely of unaccounted transactions and , which spoke solely of unaccounted transactions and undisclosed income detected in the search on the DB Realty Group. undisclosed income detected in the search on the DB Realty Group. undisclosed income detected in the search on the DB Realty Group. Since no addition has been made on the basis of the reasons ce no addition has been made on the basis of the reasons for ce no addition has been made on the basis of the reasons reopening, the Assessing Officer was not competent to sustain the , the Assessing Officer was not competent to sustain the , the Assessing Officer was not competent to sustain the reassessment solely on the strength of an unrelated addition. This reassessment solely on the strength of an unrelated addition. This reassessment solely on the strength of an unrelated addition. This ground also succeeds. ground also succeeds.

ITA 5126/MUM/2026 14 MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd. MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.

5.9 Having, held the reassessment to be held the reassessment to be unsustainable on both unsustainable on both grounds set out above, we do not consider it necessary to examine grounds set out above, we do not consider it necessary to examine grounds set out above, we do not consider it necessary to examine the merits of the addition under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, or the the merits of the addition under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, or the the merits of the addition under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, or the correctness of the Ld. CIT(A)'s reliance on Checkmate Services (P.) Checkmate Services (P.) correctness of the Ld. CIT(A)'s reliance on Ltd. (supra) in that behalf. in that behalf.

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 18/ /09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/ (ANIKESH BANERJEE ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 18/09/2026 /2026 Kunal Kr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai