G TECH INFO TRAINING LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 12(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2062/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 September 2026AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the reassessment notice was valid as it was issued within four years, thus not requiring Joint Commissioner approval. However, a significant portion of the alleged receipts pertained to a subsequent assessment year and was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return for AY 2010-11 was processed, and later reassessment proceedings were initiated based on alleged accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for these entries and disallowed certain expenses.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of reassessment proceedings due to alleged lack of approval and the correct assessment year for certain receipts. The tribunal also considered the disallowance of expenses without examining their nature.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143,Section 148,Section 151,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE RAKESH KUMAR LODHA

For Appellant: Adv. Shri Rajgopal K
Pronounced: 01.09.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 03.12.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, “Ld. Commissioner”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), for the A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the Assessee filed its return of income on 27.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs.80,120/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the

ITA No.2062/MUM/2026 G Tech Info Training Limited Act. Subsequently, on the basis of information regarding alleged accommodation entries aggregating to Rs.4,46,40,000/- received from M/s. Everest Enterprises, the AO issued notice dated 03.03.2015 u/s 148 of the Act.

3.

In the absence of compliance during the reassessment proceedings, the AO made additions of Rs.4,46,40,000/-, treating the alleged accommodation entries as unaccounted sales, and Rs.16,80,277/-, by disallowing the expenditure debited to the Profit and Loss Account.

4.

Before the Ld. Commissioner, the Assessee explained that the non-compliance occurred due to the demise of its then Chartered Accountant/authorised representative. It was further contended that, out of the alleged receipts of Rs.4,46,40,000/-, only Rs.36,85,000/- received on 23.02.2010 pertained to the year under consideration and represented sale consideration of 92,000 equity shares of M/s. M.V. Infraprojects Private Limited sold to M/s. Everest Enterprises. The remaining receipts aggregating to Rs.4,09,55,000/-, received during 22.04.2010 to 29.04.2010, pertained to the subsequent assessment year. The Ld. Commissioner, however, upheld the reopening as well as the additions.

5.

Before us, the Ld. Counsel reiterated the aforesaid factual position with reference to the notice u/s 142(1), Axis Bank account, ledger account of M/s. Everest Enterprises and Form No. 2. The Ld. Counsel also challenged the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the mandatory approval u/s 151 of the Act had neither been furnished to the Assessee nor produced before the Tribunal.

6.

The Ld. DR, on the contrary, supported the orders of the authorities below and placed on record a letter of the Jurisdictional AO stating that notice u/s 148 was issued on 03.03.2015, within

ITA No.2062/MUM/2026 G Tech Info Training Limited four years from the end of A.Y. 2010-11, and therefore approval u/s 151 was not required. On merits also, the Ld. DR supported the additions made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. Commissioner.

7.

We have heard the parties, perused the material available on record and given thoughtful consideration to their rival claims. Coming first to the legal ground, the relevant provisions of section 151, as applicable on the date of issuance of notice, read as under:

“151. Sanction for issue of notice. — (1) In a case where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice: Provided that, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2) In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.” 8. In the instant case, admittedly, no assessment u/s 143(3) or 147 had earlier been made and the return was merely processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the case did not fall under section 151(1). Further, notice u/s 148 was issued by the ITO on 03.03.2015, whereas four years from the end of A.Y. 2010-11 expired on 31.03.2015.

9.

Thus, though the case fell within section 151(2), the requirement of sanction of the Joint Commissioner thereunder arose only, where notice was issued after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Since the impugned notice

ITA No.2062/MUM/2026 G Tech Info Training Limited was issued within four years, no approval u/s 151 was required. Consequently, the contention of the Assessee regarding absence of approval u/s 151 is devoid of merit and the legal ground is accordingly dismissed.

10.

Coming to the merits, the material available on record demonstrates that, out of the alleged receipts aggregating to Rs.4,46,40,000/-, eight receipts aggregating to Rs.4,09,55,000/- were received during 22.04.2010 to 29.04.2010 and, therefore, fall in the subsequent financial year relevant to A.Y. 2011-12. Consequently, the said amount could not have been assessed in A.Y. 2010-11. Accordingly, the addition to the extent of Rs.4,09,55,000/- is deleted.

11.

The remaining receipt of Rs.36,85,000/- dated 23.02.2010 admittedly falls within the year under consideration. The Assessee explained that the same represented the recorded sale consideration of 92,000 equity shares of M/s. M.V. Infraprojects Private Limited sold to M/s. Everest Enterprises and referred to the ledger account and Form No. 2 in support thereof. However, since Form No. 2 primarily relates to allotment of shares and the genuineness of the subsequent sale transaction requires correlation with the relevant sale documents, bank entries and corresponding shareholding records, thus we consider it appropriate to direct limited verification on this aspect.

12.

Accordingly, the case qua the addition of Rs.36,85,000/- is remanded to the file of the AO for limited verification as to whether the said receipt represents the recorded sale consideration of the aforesaid shares, as claimed by the Assessee. The AO shall verify the relevant ledger account, bank entries, shareholding/allotment records and such other supporting evidence as may be produced by

ITA No.2062/MUM/2026 G Tech Info Training Limited the Assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, suffice to say, by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. No other aspect of the addition of Rs.4,46,40,000/- shall be reopened.

12.

Coming to the disallowance of Rs.16,80,277/-, we observe that the entire expenditure debited to the Profit and Loss Account was disallowed on account of non-compliance, without examining the nature and admissibility of the individual expenses. Considering the explanation furnished for such non-compliance and in the interest of proper adjudication, the case on this limited issue is remanded to the file of the AO for decision afresh, suffice to say, by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and considering the material and submissions placed/to be placed on record. The Assessee shall cooperate and furnish the requisite details and evidence without delay or default.

13.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in the aforesaid terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.09.2026. Sd/- Sd/- RAKESH KUMAR LODHA NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →