GMP TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6169/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 July 2026AY 2015-165 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment issued under Section 148 was beyond the limitation period prescribed by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty levied were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the validity of a reassessment order under Section 147 and a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The reopening was initiated after the Supreme Court's decision in Ashish Agarwal, and the assessee argued that the notice issued was beyond the permissible time limit.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings due to the alleged delay in issuing the notice under Section 148. A secondary issue was the survival of the penalty if the assessment order was deemed void.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 133(6),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 6170/MUM/2025
ITA 6169/Mum/2025
ITA No. 6169/Mum/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC both dated 28.07.2025for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. In ITA 6169/Mum/2025, the assessee has challenged the validity of assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144. In ITA No. 6170/Mum/2025, the assessee has challenged the validity of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). In both the appeal the facts are common, thus, both the appeals were clubbed together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decisions. Appeal in quantum assessment is treated as lead case.

GMP Technical Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 6169&6170/M/2025 (AY: 2015-16) In ITA No. 6169/Mum/2026, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“Ld. CIT(A)"] erred in upholding the assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the ITA in toto without appreciating the detailed submissions, documentary evidences and legal positions placed on record. The impugned order is therefore bad in law and liable to be quashed.

2.

On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment without properly adjudicating the limitation objections under Section 149 and as provided by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Writ Tax Appeal No. 1086 of 2022).

3.

On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of INR 1,70,38,930 without considering or dealing with the Appellant's detailed documentary evidence filed both during reassessment and at the appellate stage, rendering the order perverse and nonspeaking.

4.

Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in facts and in law by not adhering to the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.

5.

On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained reliance on responses under Section 133(6) of the ITA without furnishing copies to the Appellant and without affording cross-examination, thereby breaching the principle of audi alteram partem.

6.

On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating non-response/ partial response by suppliers to Section 133(6) as

GMP Technical Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 6169&6170/M/2025 (AY: 2015-16) determinative against the Appellant, instead of drawing an adverse inference only after independent verification, summons, or field enquiries.

7.

On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed addition based on a generic allegation that suppliers provide accommodation entries and return cash, without any cogent material connecting the appellant to such alleged cash-back or establishing that the appellant received any cash, which is impermissible.

8.

The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another.

9.

The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforementioned grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Ld. AO.”

2.

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that reopening under section 147 is bad in law. The case of assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 was reopened after intimation of new regime of reopening of issuing notice under section 148 on 30.06.2021. After the decision of Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (2022) 131 taxmann.com 64 (SC), a fresh show cause notice under section 148AB was issued to the assessee on 24.05.2022. The assessee filed its reply on 25.06.2022. The AO issued fresh notice under section 148 dated 31.07.2022. As per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, a surviving period of one day only was available to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO after receipt of reply issued notice under

GMP Technical Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 6169&6170/M/2025 (AY: 2015-16) section 148 on 31.07.2022 which is in all possible way beyond the surviving period. Thus, notice under section 148 is bad in law and subsequent action initiated thereon is void-ab-initio. The second appeal relates to penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). In case, assessment order is held as void-ab-initio, penalty under section 271(1)(c) will not survive. 3. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue after going through the initial notice under section 148 dated 30.06.2021, fresh show cause notice under section 148A(b) dated 24.05.2022, reply by assessee on 15.06.2022 and sub- section / section 148 dated 31.07.2022 submits that he supports the order of AO and CIT(A). 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. We have also deliberated on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) as well as in case of Rajeev Bansal (Writ Tax Appeal No. 1086 of 2022). We find that as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal, the AO was having a surviving period of one day only for issuing fresh notice under section 148. The AO issued notice under section 148 only on 31.07.2022 which is all possible way is beyond the time limit determined by Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, notice under section 148 dated 31.07.2022 is beyond limitation period. Thereby subsequent action initiated thereto is void-ab-initio. Hence, assessment order passed on the basis of such notice is quashed. In the result, appeal in quantum assessment in ITA No. 6169/Mum/2026 is

GMP Technical Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 6169&6170/M/2025 (AY: 2015-16) allowed. Considering the fact that assessment order is quashed, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) will not survive. In the result, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is also deleted. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 27/07/2026.

/- S/- Sd/- /- Sd/- Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 27/07/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →