NIHIT INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. AO, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Nihit Infracon Private ITO Ward 13(1)(1) Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. SH-111 Shopping Vs. Road, Mumbai- Centre SV Road 400 020 Dattapada Road, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 092 PAN/GIR No. AAECN9827F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Alok Bairagra, Ld. ARs Revenue by Shree Kumar C., Ld. DR Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal arised out of the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"], for Assessment Year 2019-20. The impugned appellate

2 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited order was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], arising from the assessment order dated 23.03.2024 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 13(1)(1), Mumbai under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is a private limited company. For the year under consideration, it filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 54,548/-. Subsequently, information was received by the Department that the assessee had allegedly entered into transactions aggregating to Rs. 7,72,10,945/- with M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd., which, according to the Department, represented non-genuine transactions. Based upon such information, proceedings under section 148A of the Act were initiated. Thereafter, an order under section 148A(d) dated 28.03.2023 was passed and notice under section 148 was issued on the same date. The assessee did not file any return of income in response to the said notice. During the reassessment proceedings, notices under section 142(1) were issued and complied with by the assessee. 3. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that it had received aggregate amounts from M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant previous year. According to the assessee, the amount of Rs.7,20,02,121/- represented revenue from services rendered to the said concern and had already been disclosed as sales in its books of account

3 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited and offered to tax. It was contended that once such receipts had already formed part of the turnover disclosed by the assessee, the same could not again be brought to tax as unexplained income. 4. The Assessing Officer, however, observed that M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. had been found by the Investigation Wing to be a bogus and non-existent concern engaged in providing accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer referred to information gathered during search and survey proceedings conducted in the cases of Shri Sameer Modi and Smt. Shivani Modi and noted that the said entity was allegedly not found operating from its registered addresses. The Assessing Officer further observed that no tax had been deducted at source on the payments allegedly made by M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee and that the assessee had not disclosed any business activity in the relevant schedules of the return of income. A show-cause notice was accordingly issued proposing addition of the amount received from M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. 5. The assessee reiterated before the Assessing Officer that the receipts represented consideration for consultancy and other services rendered in the ordinary course of business and that the same had already been credited to the Profit and Loss Account. It was also contended that if the receipts were excluded from turnover, the business results would undergo corresponding changes and that the same receipts could not be subjected to tax twice.

4 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited 6. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee. According to him, the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions with supporting documentary evidence. The Assessing Officer further held that the receipts were neither reflected in Form No.26AS nor properly disclosed in the relevant schedules of the return of income. Relying upon the investigation report concerning M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd., the Assessing Officer concluded that the transactions were not genuine and represented accommodation entries. Consequently, an amount of Rs.7,20,02,121/- was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the total income was assessed at Rs.7,20,56,669/- as against the returned income of Rs.54,548/-. 7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it was engaged in the business of rendering consultancy services and maintained regular books of account which were duly audited under section 44AB of the Act. It was contended that the entire premise adopted by the Assessing Officer was factually incorrect. According to the assessee, there were no purchases from M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. and, on the contrary, the assessee had rendered services to the said concern and received consideration therefor through banking channels.

5 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited 8. The assessee further submitted before the learned CIT(A) that revenue from operations amounting to Rs.8,08,56,121/- had been duly disclosed in the audited financial statements and that out of the same, revenue of Rs.7,20,02,121/- pertained to services rendered to M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. It was contended that the receipts had been recorded in the regular books of account and that all supporting documents, including bank statements and ledger accounts, had been furnished before the Assessing Officer. The assessee also explained that income had inadvertently been reflected under the head "Income from Other Sources" in the return of income, though, in substance, the receipts constituted business income. 9. The assessee further contended that the amount brought to tax under section 68 formed part of the disclosed turnover and had already been offered to tax. It was therefore argued that invocation of section 68 was legally impermissible and resulted in double taxation of the same receipt. Reliance was placed upon various judicial precedents in support of the proposition that receipts already recorded in the books and forming part of disclosed turnover could not again be assessed as unexplained cash credits. 10. The learned CIT(A), however, was not persuaded by the contentions advanced on behalf of the assessee. The appellate authority upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and sustained the addition made under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act. The learned CIT(A) held that the Assessing

6 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited Officer had rightly relied upon the material received from the Investigation Wing concerning M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. and concluded that the impugned transactions lacked credibility. The appellate authority also rejected the assessee's contention that the impugned receipts constituted genuine business receipts already subjected to tax and, consequently, confirmed the addition.

7 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in assuming jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act, without appreciating that the assessment ought to have been framed under section 153C, as the material relied upon emanates from a search conducted in the case of third party which was conducted prior to 01.04.2021 i.e. on 03.02.2021. Accordingly, the assessment framed u/s 148 is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO has not followed the binding Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikram Sujit Kumar Bhatia reported in 453 ITR 417 in which it has been held that if any information could be inferred from the seized document, then notice u/s 153C is required to be issued. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Ld. AO's action of reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by merely relying on the information received from DCIT, Central Circle, Delhi and statements recorded of third party and without providing complete material / statements to the Appellant nor granting an opportunity for cross examination and therefore the reopening of the instant case u/s 148 is bad in law, infructuous, in violation of principles of natural justice and needs to be quashed. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Ld. AO's action of reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act without appreciating that the Ld. AO initiated the reopening on the allegation that the concerned amount was in the nature of bogus purchases whilst the same is in-fact a sales transaction, and thereby the reopening has been made without independent application of mind and verification of facts and records available on I T Portal and on borrowed satisfaction and hence the same is bad in law. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that since the receipts (in respect of which section 68 has been applied by the Ld. AO) has already been offered to tax as income of the Appellant, there is therefore no question of the provision of section 68 of the Act being attracted to such income and thereby the same cannot be deemed to be an income of the Appellant u/s 68 of the Act. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding of the Ld. AO's action of taxing the sales amount again under Section 68 which tantamount to double taxation, which is in direct violation of the fundamental principle of law that income cannot be taxed twice,

8 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. CIT (Supreme Court) [2018] 93 taxmann.com 131 (SC), and consistently followed by various ITAT benches (e.g., Gosrani Impex Private Limited vs. CIT (Appeals) ITAT Mumbai, 2025). 13. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative ("AR") reiterated the factual background and invited our attention to the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act dated 08.03.2023 along with the Annexure thereto. Referring specifically to paragraph 2 of the Annexure, he submitted that the information available on the Insight Portal under the High Risk CRIU/VRU category specifically described the impugned transaction with M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. as "Bogus Transactions", and in the column titled "Information" the allegation was categorically recorded as "Bogus Purchases" involving an amount of Rs.7,72,10,945/-. He further drew our attention to paragraph 5 of the Annexure wherein the assessee was called upon to explain why notice under section 148 of the Act should not be issued on the basis of the aforesaid allegation. It was, therefore, submitted that the very foundation of the reassessment proceedings rested upon the allegation of bogus purchases. 14. The learned AR further invited our attention to the last page of the Annexure to the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act, wherein, after referring to the analysis of the bank statement of M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd., it has been stated that "the assessee is one of the beneficiary who has received Rs.7,72,10,945/-". He submitted that the notice itself is self-

9 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited contradictory. Elaborating his submission, he contended that while paragraph 2 of the Annexure categorically records the nature of information as "Bogus Purchases", the concluding portion proceeds on an altogether different premise by merely stating that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries who had received Rs.7,72,10,945/- from M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. According to him, the allegation of bogus purchases and the fact of receipt of money are two distinct concepts having different legal consequences. The learned AR submitted that the very foundation of the proceedings was thus uncertain and self- contradictory, demonstrating complete non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer while assuming jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act. 15. The learned AR submitted that despite the aforesaid factual foundation, the Assessing Officer, while framing the reassessment, completely abandoned the allegation of bogus purchases and, instead, treated the receipts from M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained cash credits under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act. According to him, the very basis on which jurisdiction was assumed and the basis on which the assessment was ultimately completed were entirely different. He contended that the Assessing Officer had assumed jurisdiction on the allegation of bogus purchases but ultimately made an addition under section 68 without there being any material forming part of the information received from the Investigation Wing suggesting that the receipts constituted unexplained cash

10 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited credits. He therefore submitted that the reassessment proceedings suffered from complete non-application of mind and were liable to be quashed as being without jurisdiction. 16. The learned AR further submitted that nowhere in the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act or the Annexure thereto has the Assessing Officer disclosed the date of search or even stated that the information emanated from a search conducted in the case of a third party. According to him, the only material from which the source of information could be gathered was the communication dated 09.02.2023 issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-14, New Delhi, forwarding the "Relevant part of Appraisal Report of Sameer Modi and Shivani Modi Group of cases (DOS 03.02.2021)". He submitted that the said communication clearly establishes that the entire information relied upon by the Assessing Officer emanated from a search conducted on a third party on 03.02.2021, i.e., prior to 01.04.2021. 17. Referring to the provisions governing reassessment consequent to a third-party search, the learned AR submitted that where the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer emanates from a search conducted prior to 01.04.2021, the assessment of a person other than the searched person could be initiated only in accordance with the provisions of section 153C of the Act, subject to satisfaction of the statutory conditions prescribed therein. He submitted that the Assessing Officer could not have invoked the provisions of section 148 merely on the

11 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited basis of such search material. According to him, the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 148, instead of section 153C, was contrary to the statutory scheme and, therefore, the impugned reassessment proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground alone. 18. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned AR placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sejal Jewellary v. Union of India[2025] 171 taxmann.com 846 (Bom.) and the recent decision of the Co- ordinate Bench in Nanne Gulzar & Company v. ACIT, ITA Nos. 3956 & 3957/Mum/2025, order dated 15.06.2026. 19. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative ("DR") strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had validly assumed jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act on the basis of credible information received from the Investigation Wing. According to him, the information was not founded exclusively on the search proceedings conducted in the cases of Sameer Modi and Shivani Modi Group. He submitted that a survey under section 133A of the Act was also conducted at the business premises of M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd., during which it was found that no genuine business activity was being carried on from the stated addresses and that the concern was engaged in providing accommodation entries through bogus invoices and non-genuine transactions. He, therefore, contended that the information available with the Assessing Officer was also based on the

12 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited findings recorded during the survey proceedings and was not confined merely to the search material. 20. The learned DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer, on the basis of the information so received and after following the procedure prescribed under section 148A of the Act, had formed a bona fide belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. He, therefore, contended that the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 148 was in accordance with law and that the assessee's contention regarding the applicability of section 153C was misconceived. According to him, the reassessment proceedings could not be held to be invalid merely because the information received by the Assessing Officer had its genesis in the investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing. He, therefore, prayed that the jurisdictional challenge raised by the assessee be rejected. 21. In the rebuttal, Inviting our attention to paragraph 3 of the Annexure to the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act, the learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has referred to the information received from the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-14, New Delhi stating that during the search proceedings under section 132 of the Act in the cases of Sameer Modi and Shivani Modi, survey proceedings under section 133A of the Act were conducted at the business premises of M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. He submitted that the survey team found that no company was operating under the name and style of M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. from either of the addresses

13 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited mentioned in the Annexure, namely Unit Nos. 603 & 604, Reliable Business Centre, Anand Nagar, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai, and Neo Vikram Co-operative Housing Society, Level-3, New Link Road, Above Audi Show Room, Andheri (West), Mumbai. 22. The learned AR submitted that, except for the aforesaid recital, the Annexure does not disclose any material whatsoever gathered during the alleged survey proceedings so far as the assessee is concerned. According to him, the survey team merely records that no concern by the name of M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. was found functioning from the stated addresses. It neither records any finding that the assessee had entered into bogus purchase transactions with the said concern nor refers to any material discovered during the survey indicating that the receipts in the hands of the assessee represented unexplained cash credits. He, therefore, submitted that the Revenue cannot derive any support from the mere reference to survey proceedings under section 133Ato justify the assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act. 23. The learned AR further contended that the reference to the survey proceedings is only incidental and the entire information relied upon by the Assessing Officer admittedly emanates from the investigation conducted in the cases of Sameer Modi and Shivani Modi and the appraisal report prepared pursuant to the search conducted therein. Therefore, according to him, the Revenue cannot avoid the applicability of section 153C merely by

14 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited referring to the survey conducted at the premises of M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. 24. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed before us including the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act along with the Annexure thereto, the letter dated 09.02.2023 issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-14, New Delhi enclosing the relevant part of the Appraisal Report in the cases of Sameer Modi and Shivani Modi Group, the objections filed by the assessee, the order passed under section 148A(d), the reassessment order and the judicial precedents relied upon by the parties. 25. The short question requiring adjudication is whether, on the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer could have assumed jurisdiction under sections 147/148 of the Act or whether the proceedings could have been initiated only under section 153C of the Act. 26. A perusal of the Annexure forming part of the notice issued under section 148A(b) leaves no manner of doubt that the very foundation of the proceedings is the investigation carried out pursuant to the search conducted in the cases of Sameer Modi and Shivani Modi Group. Paragraph 3 of the Annexure specifically records that the information was received from the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-14, New Delhi and refers to the search proceedings under section 132 in the said group. The Annexure further records that survey

15 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited proceedings under section 133A were conducted at the premises of M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter narrates the findings allegedly gathered during investigation. The Annexure thereafter refers to the analysis of documents, electronic data, bank statements and other materials collected during the search and post-search investigation and finally concludes that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries who had received Rs.7,72,10,945/-. 27. The communication dated 09.02.2023 issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-14, New Delhi, which forms part of the record, also demonstrates that the information forwarded to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer emanated from the search proceedings and enclosed the "Relevant part of Appraisal Report of Sameer Modi and Shivani Modi Group of cases". The said communication merely requested the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the transactions of the entities mentioned therein and to take remedial action in accordance with law. Thus, the very source of information relied upon by the Assessing Officer is the search conducted in the case of a third party and the material gathered pursuant thereto. 28. It is also significant that the Annexure itself contains an inherent contradiction. While paragraph 2 records that the information uploaded on the Insight Portal pertains to "Bogus Purchases" from M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd., the concluding paragraph of the very same Annexure states that on the analysis of the bank statement of M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd., the

16 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited assessee is one of the beneficiaries who has received Rs.7,72,10,945/-. Thus, the foundation of the notice itself oscillates between an allegation of bogus purchases and an allegation that the assessee was a recipient of funds. Such contradictory allegations further demonstrate that the Assessing Officer merely reproduced the investigation material received from another authority without independently examining the precise nature of the alleged escapement. 29. The contention of the Revenue that the proceedings are founded upon survey proceedings under section 133A also does not advance its case. The survey referred to in paragraph 3 of the Annexure is itself only a part of the larger investigation arising out of the search conducted in the cases of Sameer Modi and Shivani Modi Group. In fact, paragraph 3 records that the survey was conducted during the search proceedings and only states that no company was found operating under the name and style of M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd. at the stated addresses. The subsequent allegations regarding bogus invoices, routing of funds, electronic data, appraisal report, accommodation entries and the alleged receipt by the assessee are admittedly founded upon the investigation carried out pursuant to the search and the appraisal report. Therefore, the mere reference to survey proceedings cannot alter the true source and genesis of the information. 30. At this stage, it would be apposite to examine the statutory scheme. Sections 153A and 153C begin with a non obstante

17 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited clause overriding, inter alia, sections 147 and 148 of the Act. Once the conditions prescribed under section 153C are attracted, the Assessing Officer is required to proceed in accordance with the special procedure prescribed therein. The legislature has consciously carved out a separate code for assessments founded upon search and seizure operations and has excluded the applicability of the normal reassessment provisions by incorporating the overriding non obstante clause. 31. The issue arising before us is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sejal Jewellary v. Union of India [2025] 171 taxmann.com 846 (Bom.) has elaborately examined the scope and interplay of sections 147, 148, 153A and 153C of the Act. In paragraph 14 of the judgment, the Hon'ble High Court held that where the reasons recorded for reopening themselves reveal that the proceedings are founded upon material unearthed during a search action, the provisions of section 153A and section 153C stand attracted. Thereafter, in paragraph 16, after comparing the scheme of the two sets of provisions, the Hon'ble Court observed that sections 147 and 153A/153C operate in completely different fields and are "quite compartmentalized". It was further held that section 147 does not contemplate a situation which is specifically covered by sections 153A and 153C and, therefore, both provisions are intended to operate in distinct situations. 32. The Hon'ble High Court thereafter analysed the effect of the non obstante clause contained in sections 153A and 153C. In

18 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited paragraph 20, while considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., the Court held that where incriminating material is found during the course of a search, the Revenue is necessarily required to take recourse to the provisions of section 153A and only where no incriminating material is found does the power of reassessment under sections 147/148 remain available. Proceeding further, in paragraph 22, the Hon'ble High Court held that once the foundation of the proceedings is the search action and the material seized therein which was subsequently explored and investigated, the provisions of section 153C read with section 153A necessarily become applicable. In paragraph 23, the Hon'ble Court explained that the Legislature has consciously incorporated a non obstante clause in sections 153A and 153C so as to carve out an exception to the normal reassessment provisions contained in sections 147 and 148 and to avoid any overlapping between the two statutory schemes. Finally, in paragraph 24, the Hon'ble High Court concluded that the notice issued under section 147 and all consequential proceedings were without jurisdiction and bad in law. 33. The Coordinate Bench in Nanne Gulzar & Company v. ACIT, after considering the aforesaid binding judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, has reiterated the same legal position. The Bench noticed that the very foundation of the assessment was the material unearthed during the search conducted in the case of another person and, therefore, the

19 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited mandatory procedure prescribed under section 153C could not be bypassed. The Coordinate Bench also referred to subsequent Co- ordinate Bench decisions adopting the same view and observed that where the foundation of reopening rests entirely on documents seized during a search conducted in the case of a third party, the appropriate and mandatory course of action is to proceed under section 153C and not under section 147, since permitting recourse to section 147 in such circumstances would render section 153C otiose and defeat the special statutory procedure enacted by the Legislature. Respectfully following the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sejal Jewellary, the Coordinate Bench held that the impugned proceedings were without jurisdiction and bad in law, quashed the notice and all consequential proceedings, and left the remaining grounds open. 34. The facts of the present case squarely attract the aforesaid principles. The notice issued under section 148A(b) along with the Annexure thereto unequivocally records that the information relied upon by the Assessing Officer was received from the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-14, New Delhi. Paragraph 3 of the Annexure specifically refers to the search proceedings under section 132 in the cases of Sameer Modi and Shivani Modi, the survey conducted during such search at the premises of M/s. Stance Synergies Pvt. Ltd., and the subsequent investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing. The communication dated 09.02.2023 issued by the Dy.

20 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-14, New Delhi, which formed the very basis of the reassessment, expressly forwards the "Relevant part of Appraisal Report of Sameer Modi and Shivani Modi Group of cases (DOS 03.02.2021)" and merely requests the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the transactions of the beneficiaries and take action in accordance with law. Thus, the Assessing Officer has not relied upon any independent enquiry conducted by him. The entire basis for assuming jurisdiction emanates from the search conducted in the case of a third party, the appraisal report prepared pursuant thereto and the consequential investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing. 35. In these circumstances, respectfully applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sejal Jewellary and followed by the Coordinate Bench in Nanne Gulzar & Company, we have no hesitation in holding that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act is contrary to the statutory scheme. Once the Revenue itself proceeded on the basis of material emanating from the search conducted in the case of another person, the only course available in law was to invoke the machinery provisions contained in section 153C of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein. The Assessing Officer could not circumvent the special procedure enacted by the Legislature by resorting to the general provisions contained in sections 147 and 148. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under section 148, the order passed under section

21 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited 148A(d) and the consequential reassessment order cannot be sustained in law. 36. Accordingly, the notice issued under section 148, the order passed under section 148A(d) and the consequential reassessment order are held to be without jurisdiction and are hereby quashed.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 29/06/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6.

22 ITA No. 9181/Mum/2025 Nihit Infracon Private Limited आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai