SP ELECTROSOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8056/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 April 2026AY 2017-186 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 since the jurisdictional High Court had quashed the notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings, the reassessment order was without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Therefore, the additions made in the assessment order were deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice before the Bombay High Court. The High Court quashed the notice and all consequential proceedings.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer due to a challenge to the jurisdiction in issuing the notice under Section 148.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain
For Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia (Sr. AR)
Hearing: 28/04/2026Pronounced: 28/04/2026

Heard together (4 matters)

ITA No.8053 /Mum/2025
ITA No.8055/Mum/2025
ITA No.8057/Mum/2025
ITA No.8060/Mum/2025

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

2 ITA Nos.8053 to 8057/Mum/2025 ITA No.8059 to 8061/Mum/25 S.P. Electrosolutions P. Ltd. Per Bench: A batch of appeals filed by the same assessee & revenue are directed against the combined order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–53, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, “the Act”), pertaining to Assessment Years 2014–15 to 2018–19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 date of order 15/09/2025. The impugned appellate order arise out of the assessments framed by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle–5(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred, to as “the Ld. AO”), under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, date of all the orders on 30/01/2025.

2.

Since all the appeals arise from identical facts and involved common issue for convenience all the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order ITA No.8053/Mum/2025 is taken as lead case and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to all other appeals related ITA Nos. 8054 to 8057 & 8059 to 8061/Mum/2025. ITA No.8053/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2014-15 3. The assessee is successor to M/s Sunrise Enterprise. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee filed the return and declared income amount to Rs. 70,41,359/-. A search operation was conducted on 22/12/2023 u/sec 132 of the Act related Polycab India Pvt. Ltd & related entities. A part of search action in this group a Warrant of Authorisation was issued & executed to assessee u/sec 132 of the Act. The assessee’s case is reopened by issuing the notice u/sec 148 of the Act. The assessee filed the return in compliance of notice u/sec 148 of the Act and

3 ITA Nos.8053 to 8057/Mum/2025 ITA No.8059 to 8061/Mum/25 S.P. Electrosolutions P. Ltd. declared the income amount to Rs.70,41,359/-. Finally the reassessment was framed with the addition of Rs. 42,21,672/- related undisclosed cash sales. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) & the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that, as an alternative remedy, the assessee has filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The said writ petition has been filed bearing Writ Petition (L) No. 25790 of 2025, and the order therein is dated 25.08.2025. The observations of the Hon’ble Court, as relied upon, are reproduced here in below:– “4 The above Writ Petition interalia challenges the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on various grounds. One of the grounds is that the Notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates that it has to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer. This is a fatal defect and therefore the Notice has to be quashed, is the argument of the Petitioner. 5 It is the Petitioner's contention that this issue is squarely covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. 6. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue stated that though it is true that this issue is concluded by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), the said decision has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is likely to take up the matter shortly. The learned Counsel for theRevenue has fairly stated that there is no stay to the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra). 7. Considering these facts, we do not propose to keep the matter pending in this Court. Once it is fully covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) we are bound to follow it.

4 ITA Nos.8053 to 8057/Mum/2025 ITA No.8059 to 8061/Mum/25 S.P. Electrosolutions P. Ltd. 8. We accordingly set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom. 9. We however grant liberty to the Revenue to revive the above Writ Petition in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue. We make it clear that it will not be necessary for the Revenue to file a separate Interim Application to seek a revival of this Petition and the same can be done simply by moving a Praecipe before this Court. It is needless to clarify that if the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), there would be no question of any revival. 10. We also make it clear that once the Petition is revived and restored, the same would have to be decided on its own merits considering that several other issues are also raised challenging the Notice issued under Section 148. 11. Rule is accordingly made absolute and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”

5.

The Ld. DR argued and relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. However, the Ld. DR was unable to place on record any judicial precedent contrary to the submissions advanced by the Ld. AR.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and considered the material available on record. It is an undisputed position that the very jurisdiction assumed by the Ld. AO for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act has been challenged by the assessee before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, and the said Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 25.08.2025 in Writ Petition (L) No. 25790 of 2025, has categorically set aside the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act along with all consequential proceedings/orders emanating there from. The Hon’ble Court has followed its binding decision in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), noting that there is no stay granted by the Hon’ble

5 ITA Nos.8053 to 8057/Mum/2025 ITA No.8059 to 8061/Mum/25 S.P. Electrosolutions P. Ltd. Supreme Court on the said judgment. In view of the aforesaid binding judicial pronouncement, the very foundation of the reassessment proceedings stands nullified. Once the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is quashed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order passed pursuant thereto, cannot survive and are liable to be treated as void ab initio. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has rendered orders in the impugned assessment years, which are squarely applicable to all the cases under challenge before us. The detailed chart submitted in this regard is reproduced as under:

SL APPEAL NO ASST YR WP(L) No. D.O. 1 ITA 8054-M-2025 2015-16 25799 of 2025 25-08-2025 2 ITA 8055-M-2025 2016-17 25797 of 2025 25-08-2025 3 ITA 8056-M-2025 2017-18 25871 of 2025 25-08-2025 4 ITA 8057-M-2025 2018-19 25868 of 2025 25-08-2025 5 ITA 8059-M-2025 2020-21 25925 of 2025 25-08-2025 6 ITA 8060-M-2025 2021-22 25918 of 2025 02-09-2025 7 ITA 8061-M-2025 2022-23 25944 of 2025 25-08-2025

7.

Respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hold that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Act and

6 ITA Nos.8053 to 8057/Mum/2025 ITA No.8059 to 8061/Mum/25 S.P. Electrosolutions P. Ltd. the consequent assessment order passed therein are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order is set aside and the additions made therein are deleted. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos. 8053 to 8057/Mum/2025 & 8059 to 8061/Mum/2025 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th day of April 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 28/04/2026 SAUMYASr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (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 →